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

Beyond the safety annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is an experimental edge with no fallback, it is a full working router, and candidate routing improvements may be live during testing. It also gives a precise current status (no active candidate as of 2026-07-26), helping the agent understand exactly what this tool will do.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with the core purpose and then adding critical usage context, current status, and the no-fallback caveat. Every sentence provides distinct value without repetition or unnecessary 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, current experimental state, and no fallback. The response shape is described only by reference to ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable if the sibling definition is available, but slightly less self-contained.

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 parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the full meaning, 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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing experimental routing improvements, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the ask_pipeworx_grounded sibling.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also states that currently no candidate is active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx, giving useful situational guidance, though it does not discuss when to avoid it or choose ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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