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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is a beta router with candidate routing improvements enabled live, currently has no active candidate, and falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This adds experimental-context value beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and does not contradict them.

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 but each clause earns its place: what the tool is, current candidate status, usage guidance, and the no-fallback caveat. The specific detail about the retired candidate adds transparency without becoming bloated.

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 string parameter and strong annotations, the description gives sufficient context: experimental nature, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and identical response shape. It does not spell out the response format itself, but referencing the stable sibling's response shape is a practical and adequate pointer.

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 already documents all six parameters, with q, text, input, query, and prompt described as aliases for question. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates itself as the experimental candidate-routing variant, though it relies somewhat on the reader already knowing what ask_pipeworx does.

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?

It 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 states that no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, but it does not explicitly provide a when-not-to-use condition such as 'when stability is required.'

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