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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context beyond that: no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it has no fallback — it is a full working router. This makes the experimental edge behavior transparent, though it omits details like rate limits or auth.

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?

Three sentences carry the core identity, current state, usage instruction, and a clarifying caveat. The key facts are front-loaded and the description is dense without being bloated. The final stylistic flourish adds a little color but does not harm clarity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, its relationship to the stable ask_pipeworx, its current candidate state, and its no-fallback status. It does not spell out the response shape, but it explicitly says the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling context and rich annotations.

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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the required question and all five aliases with descriptions. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the experimental candidate-routing behavior from the stable router. It does not explicitly differentiate it from ask_pipeworx_grounded, but its role is still unambiguous.

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 the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also gives the current state — no candidate active — which directly informs routing decisions. It doesn't mention when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary usage condition is clearly stated.

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