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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: that behavior may vary when a routing candidate is under test, that no candidate is currently active (so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly), and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies it does not fall back to anything else — it is a full working router. This is real added value over the annotations.

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 key facts are front-loaded (beta of ask_pipeworx, identical router). However, the description is somewhat wordy — it repeats the 'identical' point several ways and explains the fallback in two different phrasings. A slightly tighter version would earn the same clarity with less text. Not bloated, but not maximally lean.

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 tool is a complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the beta nature, the current no-candidate state, how results are used, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. An agent can decide whether to call it and what to expect. The only missing piece is naming the specific current routing candidate state, but that is inherently volatile and the description handles it correctly by saying none is active now.

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% — all 6 parameters (question plus 5 aliases) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable since the schema fully carries this burden. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific purpose: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape, differing only by experimental routing improvements. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling ask_pipeworx and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by framing itself as the 'experimental edge.' No ambiguity about what it is.

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 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead (e.g., for production/reliability-critical calls), so the when-not side is only implicit — a small gap but not misleading.

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