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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no candidate routing improvement is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This clarifies the experimental nature without contradicting 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?

Three dense sentences, each serving a purpose: identity and parity, current experimental state, and explicit usage behavior. No filler or redundant restatement; front-loaded with the most important distinction (beta status).

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 universal router with a single natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool is, its current state, how to use it, and that it is fully functional. Referencing the sibling's identical response shape removes ambiguity about return values.

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 semantics beyond stating that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is consistent but not additive. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the full 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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge where candidate routing improvements are tested.

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 direct usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It implies the stable ask_pipeworx is the alternative but does not explicitly state when to avoid this beta version or prefer the stable one.

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