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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that no candidate is currently active, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints and gives the agent an accurate model of experimental 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 information-dense but remains readable, with each sentence covering a distinct aspect: beta status, current candidate state, usage guidance, and the guarantee that it is a full router. It is slightly longer than minimal, but every sentence earns its place given the experimental 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?

For a complex universal router with no output schema, the description provides essential context: same tools, same arguments, same response shape as ask_pipeworx, and current exact-match behavior. It could go further by describing the actual response shape, but the explicit equivalence to ask_pipeworx is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds only that it uses the 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful for cross-referencing but does not go beyond what the schema already explains. 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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental routing improvements. It states exactly what the tool does and how it relates to ask_pipeworx, 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 you want the newest routing, giving clear guidance for when to choose this beta variant. It does not explicitly say 'use ask_pipeworx for stable/ordinary routing,' but the contrast with the stable router is strongly implied, so the guidance is nearly complete.

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