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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that this is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that it is a full working router with no fallback, which is valuable behavioral context the annotations 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: identity, current experimental status, usage instruction, and reassurance that it is a complete router. The key differentiator — beta vs stable — appears first, and the length is justified by the nuance around live candidate testing.

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 routing tool with a simple question/alias parameter set, the description is fully sufficient. It names the stable sibling, explains current behavior, confirms the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential 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 input schema has 100% coverage and already documents the 'question' parameter and all its aliases. The description adds that the tool shares ask_pipeworx's arguments, but it does not need to repeat parameter details since the schema fully handles them. This meets the baseline for schema-backed parameter documentation.

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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes this beta variant from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs.

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 tells the agent to use this tool when it wants the newest routing and to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also notes when no candidate is active and that it currently matches the stable router. It could be stronger by explicitly stating 'use ask_pipeworx when you want the stable version,' but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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