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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and current behavior exactly matches ask_pipeworx. This tells the agent what to expect at call time.

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 but not bloated: four sentences convey beta status, current candidate state, stable comparison, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key fact that this is a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, and every sentence contributes useful routing 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 tool that mirrors ask_pipeworx, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: identical router, current no-candidate state, how to use it, and that it is a full working router. It lacks an explicit description of the response contents, but it does state 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is probably sufficient given the sibling relationship.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the aliases q, text, and input are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond that, so baseline 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 opens with a specific statement: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)'. This clearly identifies what the tool does, its scope, and its relationship to the stable sibling. It also distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by explicitly framing it as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This provides a clear selection condition, names the alternative, and clarifies that this is not a fallback but a full working router.

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