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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the live experimental behavior: candidate improvements can be enabled, the last candidate was retired on 2026-07-26, and currently it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also preempts a likely misconception by stating, 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.' This meaningfully discloses behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 compact relative to the complexity it conveys, front-loading the beta relationship and then adding current status, usage guidance, and a clarifying non-fallback note. Every sentence earns its place, though the date and comparative details make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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 is identical to ask_pipeworx, the description adequately covers what it is, how to use it, its current runtime status, and that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It gives enough context for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly without an output schema.

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 schema already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description adds only that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful relational context but not substantial new 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 clearly states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape, plus live candidate routing improvements. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and positions 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, and clarifies current equivalence since no candidate is active. The alternative stable router is named, and the condition selecting this variant is clear.

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