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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: it is a live experiment, no candidate is active right now, the last was retired on a specific date, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router.

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 and information-dense, covering current status, relationship to stable, and usage in a compact form. It has slight redundancy around the idea that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, but every piece of information is relevant.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description communicates the key invocation fact: it is the same as ask_pipeworx, with the same arguments and response shape. It could more fully describe the response shape, but the explicit tie to ask_pipeworx makes it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is an alias for the question field, so the schema fully documents parameter meaning. The description adds that arguments match ask_pipeworx but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over the same 5,908 tools, with candidate routing improvements when under test. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly framing it as 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied stable router.

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