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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningfully beyond that: the experimental status, live candidate switching, and the fact that the last candidate was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26. It also clarifies this is a full working router with no fallback — a useful disambiguation against the 'beta' label. No contradiction with annotations; the safety profile is consistent.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity, current state, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The beta-status nuance justifies the length, and the key fact (identical to ask_pipeworx) is front-loaded.

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 6 params (5 aliases), full annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: an agent knows it is the experimental router, what arguments it accepts (via schema), what response shape to expect ('same response shape'), and what the beta status implies. The only minor gap is not defining what happens when a candidate is under test beyond 'candidate routing improvements.'

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%, with each alias (q, text, input, prompt, query) documented as an alias for 'question.' The description refers to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx rather than repeating schema content, which is appropriate; with full schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies.

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 states precisely what the tool is — a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router spanning 5,767 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and the grounded variant by its experimental status, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 instructs the agent to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains that candidate routing improvements are compared against the stable router. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It doesn't, however, address when the grounded variant would be preferable, leaving some selection nuance to the agent.

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