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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description reveals live behavioral variability: candidate routing improvements may be enabled during tests, and as of a specific date no candidate is active, making it identical to ask_pipeworx. This gives useful context about potential future behavior changes without contradicting any annotation.

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 composed of four tight sentences, each contributing essential information about the beta status, current parity, usage, and fallback guarantee. It is slightly redundant in mentioning 'identical' and 'same arguments' but remains efficient and well-structured.

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 covers the tool's relationship to ask_pipeworx, the live-testing nuance, and the absence of fallback, which is sufficient for a single-required-parameter router. The response shape is mentioned as identical to ask_pipeworx but not detailed; since this references a sibling, it's an acceptable minor 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but this is fully acceptable given the schema alone is sufficient; hence the baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools, with identical arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting the experimental routing improvements and current parity when no candidate is active.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also contrasts with the stable router and clarifies it is a full working router, so an agent knows it can rely on it despite the experimental edge.

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