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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: no candidate is currently active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This clarifies the experimental nature without contradicting annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: beta identity, current state, usage instruction, and a clarification that it is a complete router. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by tying the response shape directly to ask_pipeworx and explaining the experimental behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though mentioning the grounded alternative would have made sibling selection even clearer.

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 baseline is 3. The description only says arguments match ask_pipeworx and does not add details about the question parameter or its aliases, leaving the schema to carry that burden.

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 5,929 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, which differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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 notes results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear selection criterion, though it does not discuss when the stable router would be preferred or mention the grounded variant.

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