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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the beta behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active currently, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that it does not fall back to anything and is a full working router. This is valuable operational context beyond what annotations provide.

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 somewhat long but each sentence earns its place: beta status, candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the core definition. Slight redundancy like 'this IS a full working router' could be trimmed, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, current state, relationship to ask_pipeworx, usage, and response shape. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 aliases and the primary 'question' parameter documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but that is acceptable because the schema already fully explains the parameters.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does and how it differs from the sibling.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, which gives context for why it exists. It doesn't leave the selection decision to inference.

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