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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false; the description adds context beyond annotations by disclosing that it is a live experimental variant, that candidate routing improvements may be enabled, that none is active right now, and that it falls back to nothing. This is useful behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to trust results.

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: it establishes the beta relationship, current state, usage instruction, and fallback behavior. The essential comparison to ask_pipeworx comes first, though the trailing details could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is adequate for an agent. It also covers current status and how results are used. It could be more complete by describing what the response contains, but the reference to identical response shape and full working router covers the major 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the schema already covers all 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?

States it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools and arguments, and explicitly says no candidate is active so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Distinguishes it from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge while clarifying it is a full working router.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and that results are compared against the stable router. Does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the comparison to ask_pipeworx provides usable context.

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