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

Discloses the experimental-edge status, that routing candidates are 'enabled live,' that none is active right now so it 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' and that results feed merge decisions against the stable router. The 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' line prevents the classic beta-means-broken misconception. This richly exceeds the annotations, which only establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile.

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 the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') before covering state, usage, and fallback guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle sentence packs date-stamped status and comparison rationale that could be tightened.

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 6-param router with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, it covers identity, invocation pattern, current behavior, and output shape by reference ('same response shape'). Minor gaps: it never tells an agent how to detect when a candidate actually goes live, and the 2026-07-26 status detail will age.

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%: all six parameters are documented, with question described as accepting 'query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.' The description adds only cross-tool reassurance ('same arguments') rather than per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pinpoints a specific resource — a universal router over 5,743 tools — and frames it as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx... with candidate routing improvements enabled live.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and from ask_pipeworx_grounded without needing to inspect either sibling's schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and routes to the alternative by noting the two are currently identical ('same arguments, same response shape'). It lacks an explicit when-not statement — e.g., prefer the stable router when consistency matters — so it stops short of a 5.

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