Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains the live candidate state, that no candidate is currently active, that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub, and that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This materially clarifies what the agent should expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but information-dense, opening with the core identity and immediately clarifying the key distinction from the stable sibling. Each sentence adds necessary operational or contextual value, and the phrasing is direct and unambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-required-parameter router, the description covers what the tool is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, its current runtime state, and the experimental caveat. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response shape in its own right, but it references the identical response shape of ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and all six parameters are aliases for the same natural-language question field, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond saying the arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is not needed for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a concrete condition for selection and acknowledges when the stable sibling is the natural alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.