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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router rather than a stub. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 moderately sized but every sentence contributes meaningful context: beta status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, usage guidance, and the absence of a fallback. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and does not waste words.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the tool's behavior, current state, relationship to the stable sibling, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. An agent can confidently select and invoke it, though a concrete example of a routed question would add a bit more ground truth.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question' parameter. The description adds only that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but not necessary for understanding the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental routing improvements, making its purpose and relationship to ask_pipeworx unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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