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

It discloses the beta nature, the current lack of an active candidate, that it is a full working router with no fallback, and that results are compared to the stable router. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, especially the experimental-status and live-routing 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 longer than minimal but every sentence contributes: identity, candidate state, usage intent, and no-fallback clarification. There is some repetition of 'ask_pipeworx', but it is used deliberately to reinforce the relationship with the stable sibling.

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 router-style tool with one required string parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: same response shape as ask_pipeworx, candidate status, and current equivalence to the stable version. The only mild gap is not clarifying whether comparison to the stable router still happens when no candidate is active, but this is minor.

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 all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline of 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 clearly states what the tool is: a beta version of ask_pipeworx acting as the same universal router with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by labeling itself as the experimental edge and explicitly noting it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the evaluation context against the stable router, making the intended use clear. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the beta/stable distinction implies the exclusion.

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