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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses live candidate-routing behavior, the current no-active-candidate status, exact match to ask_pipeworx, and the deliberate lack of fallback. The 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' clarification is especially useful and prevents a dangerous misinterpretation.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, current state, usage instruction, and caveat each appear in their own sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Falls back to nothing' clarification prevents misunderstanding without padding.

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 current behavior, usage guidance, no-active-candidate status, and the experimental nature thoroughly. The main gap is that it references ask_pipeworx's response shape rather than describing it independently, which could matter to an agent unfamiliar with the stable tool.

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 already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including the question field and all five aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'same arguments', so the baseline 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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. This is more specific than the title and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded siblings, though it relies on knowing what ask_pipeworx does for full clarity.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear context for choosing the beta variant, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable router in contrast.

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