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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it is a full working router, not a fallback, candidate routing improvements may be live, and as of 2026-07-26 no candidate is active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also highlights that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges.

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. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes identity and scope, the second clarifies the current no-candidate state, the third gives direct usage guidance, and the fourth removes ambiguity about fallback behavior. Highly front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 is sufficient for an agent to know this is a usable, fully working router, how to call it, and what its relationship to ask_pipeworx is. It leaves the exact response shape unspecified, relying on the promise that it matches ask_pipeworx; since there is no output schema and the description is not fully self-contained on return format, this is a minor but real completeness gap.

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 all six parameters documented, including the five aliases of question. The description adds only 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx,' which does not deepen or clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is the expected baseline when the schema fully carries parameter documentation.

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 a clear purpose: this is the beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router, with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by framing itself as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements.

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 gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable router as the comparison point for routing decisions. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., when production stability is required), leaving that exclusion implied rather than stated.

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