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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: live candidate routing improvements, the current inactive-candidate state, and the reassurance that it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full working router. It also commits to the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, making runtime behavior predictable.

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 efficiently convey status, equivalence, usage, and experimental context without padding. There is minor redundancy between 'identical' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 no output schema and the complexity of a universal router, the description compensates by tying response shape, arguments, and behavior to ask_pipeworx and by stating the current live state. An agent familiar with ask_pipeworx has enough to call this variant correctly. It relies on sibling knowledge for actual routing semantics, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 the question parameter and its five aliases, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only states that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx without adding format, syntax, or constraint details. This is adequate but not additive over the schema.

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 immediately identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an 'identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It differentiates it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by marking it experimental, while also confirming it is a fully working router rather than a stub.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state—no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly—which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly spell out when to prefer the stable or grounded variants, but the experimental-vs-stable distinction implies the intended usage.

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