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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live, none is active currently, it falls back to nothing, and it is a full working router. This goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 structured with definition, current state, usage guidance, and a clear no-fallback warning. Some redundancy exists with repeated reference to matching ask_pipeworx and 'full working router,' but the information is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 tool that mirrors ask_pipeworx, the description sufficiently covers the experimental nature, current behavior, and that response shape and arguments match the stable tool. Not having an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'same response shape' reassurance.

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%, with the question parameter and its aliases fully documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but because the schema already covers all parameters, 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 identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It is clear about being the experimental variant, though it relies on ask_pipeworx itself to convey the core routing function.

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 use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that with no candidate active it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions.

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