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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations and prevents incorrect assumptions.

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 appropriately detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: it explains beta status, current state, usage, comparison to stable, and explicit fallback behavior. While slightly dense, it contains no filler.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides all necessary context an agent needs: what the tool is, when to use it, its experimental nature, current behavior, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'same response shape' reference.

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%, so aliases like q, text, input, query, and prompt are already documented. The description adds only 'same arguments' without explaining parameter semantics further, which is acceptable but not additive. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 defines the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by its experimental routing status, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is and how it differs from ask_pipeworx.

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 the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the primary alternative.

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