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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that this is an experimental router with live candidate routing improvements, that it may change behavior based on tests, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that it is a fully working router with no fallback. This adds significant behavioral transparency.

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 yet informative, front-loading the core purpose (beta router) and then providing usage context and current state. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured in a few sentences.

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 largely complete for a router tool: it states the tools count, the identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, and the response shape. However, it does not explicitly describe the output format or error behavior, relying on the reference to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx. Given that no output schema is provided, a small gap remains, but the description covers most essential context.

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 schema already covers all six parameters with descriptions, explaining that they are aliases for the same 'question' field. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, 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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that sends questions to 5,908 tools. It specifies that it incorporates candidate routing improvements, distinguishing it from the stable ask_pipeworx. The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx). This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over its stable sibling.

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