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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, may change behavior live when a candidate routing improvement is under test, and that all responses are used for comparison. This is useful transparency that annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loads the key identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and the most operationally relevant fact ('currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'). It briefly explains the experimental purpose without excessive detail. Slightly verbose in the middle, but every sentence contributes useful context.

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 single-required-parameter routing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the current state, the experimental caveat, and the fallback behavior. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response shape, but that is inherited from ask_pipeworx and the description explicitly states the response shape is identical, which is sufficient.

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%, and all six parameters are aliases for the single 'question' parameter. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is already exhaustive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with identical universal routing behavior, and explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It could be slightly clearer as a standalone purpose, but it strongly differentiates from the stable sibling by framing itself as the experimental variant with candidate routing improvements.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback stub, which prevents an agent from assuming it's a partial or disabled tool.

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