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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description reveals the live experimental behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled whenever under test, and currently none is active. It also clarifies there is no fallback and that the tool is a full working router. This is rich, honest context about current behavior.

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 the beta status and the equivalence to ask_pipeworx, then current state and usage guidance. It is a few sentences longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence adds distinct information about behavior or selection.

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 no output schema, the description is complete about behavior, current state, and relationship to the stable counterpart. It does not explicitly address the grounded sibling `ask_pipeworx_grounded`, which is a minor contextual gap. Overall enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains the required `question` parameter and its aliases. The description adds that the argument set is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful for transfer, but provides no additional per-parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 by defining the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and specifies that it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes the experimental purpose ('candidate routing improvements') from the stable sibling. This is a specific, non-tautological statement of what the tool does.

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 gives an explicit selection condition: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, implying the stable tool is the alternative for non-experimental use. It stops short of naming all alternatives or stating a when-not-to-use condition, so not a 5.

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