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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: candidate routing improvements are only active when under test, no candidate is currently active, the last was retired on outcome evidence, and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies the tool does not fall back to anything and is a full working router, with no contradiction to the readOnly/idempotent annotations.

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 dense sentences carry identity, current behavior, usage guidance, and a fallback clarification with no filler. The most important distinction, experimental vs stable, is front-loaded.

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?

Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough: it explains current parity with the stable router, when to use the beta, that it is fully functional, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for all six parameters, so the description does not need to document them individually. Saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx is consistent and useful context but adds no new 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, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, while explicitly marking it as the experimental edge. This differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and other sibling tools.

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 you want the newest routing and explains that results are compared against the stable router. The beta/experimental framing implies when not to use it, though it does not spell out a firm exclusion rule for the stable version.

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