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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is a full working router, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active, and live routing candidates may be enabled during testing. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the experimental nature.

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—'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'—and then organizes status, usage, and fallback behavior clearly. Some details like the exact date and tool count are extra but relevant to context. It is a bit more verbose than strictly necessary but stays efficient and scannable.

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 covers the essential context: identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, same arguments/response shape, current inactive-candidate state, and experimental edge. It points to ask_pipeworx for response details rather than fully spelling them out, which is acceptable given the sibling is available to the agent. The live-swap behavior and comparison purpose also add completeness.

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 provides complete descriptions for all six parameters, including 'question' and its five aliases, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely says 'same arguments' without adding any semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter 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 states clearly that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting the experimental routing edge and live candidate testing. This gives an agent a precise functional identity and sets it apart from 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, which is a clear usage condition. It names the stable alternative and explains that results are compared to decide merges. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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