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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the current experimental state: no candidate is active as of the stated date, results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This gives agents accurate expectations about live variability and reliability.

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 compact yet information-dense: it covers identity, scope, current status, usage, and experimental purpose without filler. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the key 'same as ask_pipeworx' point is front-loaded.

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 simple single-question router with strong annotations, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: behavior, current parity, experimental purpose, and safeness. It points to 'same response shape' rather than describing it, which is acceptable given ask_pipeworx is a sibling, but slightly incomplete without that context.

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%, with the question parameter and all five aliases documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'same arguments,' so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by the live candidate routing improvements, so an agent can separate it from sibling tools.

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 the newest routing is desired, and notes that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It implies that stable/preferred behavior belongs with ask_pipeworx, but does not give a hard exclusion like 'prefer ask_pipeworx for production use.'

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