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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, that the last candidate was retired on a specific date, and that the tool has no fallback because it is a fully working router. This gives the agent essential context about experimental variability and current 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 compact and information-dense: beta status, identity with ask_pipeworx, live candidate behavior, current no-candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback guarantee all fit in three sentences with no filler.

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 variant tool that inherits its contract from ask_pipeworx, the description covers all the important differences: candidate improvements, current inactive state, and fallback behavior. The 'same response shape' statement plus the named sibling is sufficient given the rich schema and tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'question' parameter fully described and all aliases documented. The description adds only 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not necessary for understanding parameters because the schema already handles them completely. 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 the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the experimental routing edge.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, names the stable router as the comparison target, and states the current state (no candidate active) so the agent knows it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is direct when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative.

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