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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detail about live candidate routing improvements, the current inactive state (as of 2026-07-26), and that results are compared against the stable router. It also discloses that it falls back to nothing and is a full working router. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the live A/B testing nature and current state, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'candidate routing improvements' entail.

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 yet information-dense. The first sentence establishes what it is and its relationship to the stable version. Subsequent sentences cover current status, usage instructions, and behavioral caveat — all in a few sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential identity and scope.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single required string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential context: what it is, when to use it, current experimental state, and the guarantee that it is a fully functional router. A minor gap is the lack of an example usage or a brief note on what kind of questions it routes, but the 'same 5,798 tools' reference plus the sibling names provide sufficient context for an agent.

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% and the schema documents all aliases for question (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description says 'same arguments' but does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already covers all six parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't compensate with extra parameter details but doesn't need to.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical tools and arguments. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements. It also states exactly what it does: it routes questions to the same 5,798 tools with the same response shape, and is a full working router, not a fallback/stub.

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. It notes that no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over the stable sibling, and it also contrasts with the sibling tools by positioning it as an experimental edge comparison against the stable router.

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