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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, results are compared against the stable router, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This gives the agent a clear picture of its experimental and evolving nature.

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 dense and front-loaded with the beta definition and scope. Most sentences earn their place, including the important fallback clarification. The date '2026-07-26' and the parenthetical 'same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape' add useful context but could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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 routing tool with complete schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the description provides enough context: same arguments, same response shape, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and experimental behavior. It does not detail the return format or auth requirements, but this is largely covered by the 'same as ask_pipeworx' reference and the safety annotations.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already explains all six parameters, with clear aliases for 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding any new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy documentation but adds no extra semantic value.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by calling out candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge. This is specific verb+resource clarity that distinguishes it from its primary 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 gives explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and note that no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that it is not a fallback but a full working router. It does not, however, discuss the ask_pipeworx_grounded sibling or give exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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