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

The description discloses the live experimental behavior: candidate improvements are enabled 'live whenever one is under test,' no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, and 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This adds real operational context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, and it contradicts none of them.

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?

Four sentences front-load identity and current state, then provide usage guidance, comparison philosophy, and a clarifying no-fallback note. Each sentence contributes distinct decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

The key operational facts are present: what the tool is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, its current inactive-candidate state, expected response consistency, and the clarification that it is a fully working router despite the beta label. The description removes the ambiguity the word 'beta' might otherwise create.

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?

The description only says 'same arguments' and 'same response shape,' without adding per-parameter semantics. Since the input schema already documents the required question field and all five aliases with 100% coverage, the schema carries the semantic load. Therefore the description earns the baseline score rather than adding significant parameter-level value.

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 opens with a precise identity statement: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from its stable counterpart by framing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It also notes no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx. However, it does not spell out when not to use it or mention grounded alternatives, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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