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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: this is a live experimental edge whose routing may change when candidates are under test, results are compared against the stable router, and it falls back to nothing—i.e., it is a fully working router, not a stub. This goes beyond the annotations usefully.

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 information-dense with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the beta identity, then covers identical behavior, current inactivity status, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and fallback behavior in a compact paragraph. Every clause earns its place.

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 beta alias of a universal router with six aliased string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual facts an agent needs: what it is, how to use it, when to prefer it, how it differs from the stable sibling, and its current live state. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters including aliases. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond noting the same arguments as ask_pipeworx and mentioning question in passing. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 clearly identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, states it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental routing improvements. The verb is implicit (ask/route) but the resource and relationship are explicit, so an agent can immediately understand what it does.

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 you want the newest routing, and explains the experimental comparison purpose. It even notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the sibling alternative.

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