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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is an experimental router with candidate routing improvements enabled live during tests, that no candidate is currently active, and that it falls back to nothing but is still a full working router. This gives important behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 appropriately detailed and front-loaded with the beta identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It has some slight redundancy in repeatedly saying 'same' for tools, arguments, and response shape, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

The description tells the agent the current state, how to use it, what it shares with ask_pipeworx, and what happens when a candidate is under test. There is no output schema, but it points to the shared response shape. It does not fully detail response contents, but this is mitigated by the reference to ask_pipeworx.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description mentions the same arguments as ask_pipeworx but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx, states that it is a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and explains how it differs from the stable router. This distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx and other tools.

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 like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It points to the alternative stable router, though it does not explicitly say 'do not use this if you want stable behavior'.

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