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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no routing candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback. The 2026-07-26 retirement detail prevents an agent from assuming experimental changes are live.

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 long but every clause carries information: beta status, parity with the stable tool, current active-candidate status, usage instruction, and non-fallback guarantee. The key beta-versus-stable distinction is front-loaded, and the additional details all support correct invocation and expectations.

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?

The tool has a trivially simple input (one required question string with aliases), and annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile. The description explains the current experimental state, selection guidance, and return-shape parity, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters, including the primary question parameter and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema makes parameter semantics fully clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens by identifying this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and states that it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the experimental routing edge. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition rather than a tautology.

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?

It says to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' which gives a clear selection condition and reference point. It also notes that results are compared against the stable router, signaling the experimental context. No explicit 'do not use if...' list is given, but the when-condition and the stable sibling alternative are enough.

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