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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements may be live, that none are currently active, and that it is a fully functional router with no fallback. The phrase 'Falls back to nothing' is particularly valuable for setting agent expectations about 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 dense and slightly repetitive around 'identical router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', but every sentence conveys meaningful information. The experimental status is front-loaded, making the most important caveat immediately visible.

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?

Given that this is a simple natural-language router with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: current behavior, relationship to siblings, parameter compatibility, and the response-shape equivalence to ask_pipeworx. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema documents all six parameters and their aliases with 100% coverage, including the main 'question' field description. The description only adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but does not substantially improve on the schema. 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 clearly identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that routes natural-language queries to 5,743 tools. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing edge and the current no-active-candidate state, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 one wants the newest routing, and mentions that results are compared against the stable router. This provides direct when-to-use guidance and implicitly names the stable ask_pipeworx as the more conservative alternative, which is sufficient for routing decisions.

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