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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: candidate routing improvements are live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and the tool does not fall back to a stub but is a fully working router. This gives agents an accurate picture of the experimental and changing behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core identity of the tool, then adds current state, usage direction, and a clarifying statement that it does not fall back to nothing. It is somewhat dense, and the specific retirement date is arguably extra detail, but every sentence contributes necessary context for an experimental tool variant. Overall it is well structured without being wasteful.

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 live experimental router with no output schema, the description covers the current behavior, the relationship to the stable version, and the fact that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It does not independently spell out the response format, instead deferring to ask_pipeworx's shape, which is an acceptable but slightly incomplete solution. All invocation semantics are otherwise covered.

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?

Parameter coverage in the schema is 100%, with all six parameters documented, including the primary 'question' field and the aliases q, text, input, query, and prompt. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 explains it is an identical universal router over 5,767 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by the key difference: candidate routing improvements enabled live. This is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool does and how it relates to its siblings.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and it explains that results are compared against the stable router to inform merges. This gives a clear condition for selecting this tool over the stable version. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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