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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback. No contradiction with 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 dense and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: identity, current state, usage, and non-fallback guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, it covers current behavior, usage, experimental comparison, and reliability. The response shape is referenced via 'same response shape' rather than enumerated, which is acceptable given ask_pipeworx is a sibling tool.

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% and the schema already documents all aliases for the question parameter. The description adds that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not add new parameter-level meaning.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by emphasizing its experimental routing 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 results are compared against the stable router. It does not spell out when NOT to use it, but the experimental framing provides adequate context.

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