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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent safety. The description adds that this is a live experimental router with candidate improvements enabled whenever one is under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail how routing might differ when a candidate is active.

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 three sentences and front-loads the beta identity, then explains current state and usage. It is slightly dense (5,798 tools, dates) but each sentence earns its place by clarifying the experimental nature and current equivalence to the stable router.

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?

Given the tool is a simple question-as-router with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it is, how to use it, and the fact that it currently matches the stable router. It relies on cross-referencing ask_pipeworx for response shape, but that is an acceptable shortcut for a beta variant.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters and their aliases. The description only references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a clear when-to-use condition and implies the stable alternative, so an agent knows the selection criteria.

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