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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: candidate routing may activate live, none is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx, and it is a full router with no fallback. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded with the core identity (beta twin of ask_pipeworx), then current state, usage, and a clarifying no-fallback note. Every sentence earns its place; the retired-candidate date is specific but relevant context.

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 one-required-parameter router with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: how to invoke it, current equivalence to stable, expected experimental differences, and response-shape identity with ask_pipeworx. No invocation-critical detail is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents `question` and all five aliases at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter detail beyond saying the arguments match ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,728 tools, arguments, and response shape, and it positions itself as the experimental edge. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and, by naming ask_pipeworx rather than ask_pipeworx_grounded as its parent, disambiguates it from the grounded variant.

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 results are compared against the stable router. However, it never states when not to use it or how to choose ask_pipeworx_grounded, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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