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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that none is active currently (as of 2026-07-26), and that results are compared against the stable router. This transparency about the tool's changing behavior and potential nondeterminism is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 most important information (beta, identical router, same tools/args/response), then explains the current status and usage. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the beta status. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured. The 'Use it exactly like...' sentence is action-oriented and placed near the end after the 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds all essential behavioral context: what the beta means, current state, comparison against stable router, and explicit fallback behavior. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is fine because the description states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, and the response shape doesn't need to be repeated.

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 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with 100% coverage the schema carries the burden. The description does reinforce that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful. However, it doesn't elaborate on the expected format or length of the question, but the schema explicitly states 'Your question or request in natural language,' which suffices. Baseline of 3 raised to 4 because the description explicitly confirms the argument semantics match the stable router, giving extra confidence.

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 explicitly states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements enabled live when under test. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental status and current equivalence. The verb 'ask' and resource 'router' are concrete, and the scope is precisely defined.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' This provides a clear when-to-use directive. It also clarifies that it 'falls back to nothing' and is a full working router, preventing confusion about it being a partial or stub tool. Alternatives (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are implicitly distinguished by beta vs stable.

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