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

The description discloses current live behavior in detail: no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and clearly sets expectations about experimental edge behavior.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries relevant information: beta status, exact parity with stable, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback guarantee. It is slightly repetitive around the 'same' phrasing, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the most important fact.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description provides the essential call context: identical behavior, same response shape as ask_pipeworx, current state, and comparison purpose. It relies on the sibling tool definition for response details, which is reasonable since ask_pipeworx appears in the sibling list and the description points there explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters, including aliases for question. The description only adds that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which provides useful cross-reference context but does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and states what it is: an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements under test. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling while explaining its exact function.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear usage context and implies the stable sibling as the alternative, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this beta version.

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