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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses live candidate routing changes, the retirement of the last candidate, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and that the tool is a fully working router with no fallback. This gives an agent important behavioral nuance that annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded with identity and scope, then gives current state, usage guidance, and a clarifying no-fallback note. Each sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the useful beta-specific context.

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 beta variant of an existing router, the description is complete: it states exact parity with ask_pipeworx, same arguments, same response shape, current experimental status, and explicit usage conditions. Annotations cover safety and side-effect behavior, and no output schema is needed because the response shape is explicitly declared as identical to ask_pipeworx.

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 baseline applies; the description does not add parameter-level detail. It says the tool has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful context, but it does not explain question/q/text/input semantics beyond what the schema already describes.

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?

Description clearly identifies a specific verb/resource combo: a beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router, with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by focusing on candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and mentions results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies current state — no candidate active — so the agent knows when behavior is identical to the stable alternative.

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