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

Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live, no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This tells the agent behavior may change between calls and that it is genuinely experimental. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Four sentences that front-load the core identity: beta version, identical universal router. There is some redundancy between 'same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', but each sentence contributes status, usage guidance, or a caveat. Well organized despite minor repetition.

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?

Covers what the tool is, its current experimental state, when to use it, and clarifies it is not a stub or fallback. Since there is no output schema, the description references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, giving agents enough grounding through the sibling tool. Complete for a router whose parameter details live in the schema.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions, with q, text, input, query, and prompt documented as aliases for the required 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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?

Description states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router routing to the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and other siblings by being the experimental edge. The resource and action are specific and 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?

Gives an explicit condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains results are compared against the stable router, signalling this is for evaluating routing candidates. It doesn't explicitly discuss scenarios where beta should be avoided, but the main selection criterion is clearly stated.

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