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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that there is no fallback. This gives the agent a precise model of the tool's current and potential behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core identity and then provides useful details about testing status and usage. It is slightly verbose with the 'Falls back to nothing' clarification, but every sentence contributes meaningful 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 beta router with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description explains what the tool is, how it currently behaves, when to use it, and how it relates to ask_pipeworx. The response shape is deferred to ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable given the sibling 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 every parameter documented as an alias for 'question'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond noting the same arguments are accepted as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental 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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the user wants the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with the stable router is clear enough.

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