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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that routing may change when a candidate is under test, that none is currently active, that it currently matches the stable router exactly, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This gives the agent important behavioral context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: identity, current experimental state, usage instruction, and a correction of a likely misconception about fallback behavior. The description is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's beta behavior, current alignment with the stable router, usage context, and the fact that it is a full working router. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but it points to ask_pipeworx for the identical response shape, which is reasonable for a wrapper of this kind.

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%, with the 'question' parameter fully described and all aliases listed. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements enabled live.

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 like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains the current state where no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement, but the condition for use is clear enough.

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