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

The description discloses beyond the annotations that this is an experimental beta edge, that candidate routing improvements may be live only when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is rich behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core beta identity, then covers current status, usage, and experimental behavior. It is slightly repetitive around matching ask_pipeworx, but each sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the simple alias-only schema, rich readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, and the clear relationship to the ask_pipeworx sibling, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It states current routing state, usage instructions, and experimental behavior.

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%, and the schema already documents all six string aliases for the question parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline score 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements. This differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and states exactly what kind of tool it is.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the agent wants the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This gives a clear selection condition and names the relevant alternative.

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