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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the crucial behavioral nuance that this is a live experimental edge with routing improvements potentially active, and that no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26. This contextualizes the beta risk beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail failure modes (e.g., what happens if routing misbehaves).

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the beta identity and equivalence to ask_pipeworx in the first sentence, then adding the current status, usage instruction, and fallback clarification in a tight paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical date adds precision without bloat.

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 low parameter complexity and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: aliases are in the schema, safety is in annotations, and the beta/experimental status plus current routing state is explained. The only potential omission is an explicit comparison to ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the description's scope is specifically about the stable router vs beta, and sibling context already shows both.

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%: the single required parameter 'question' is fully described, and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) are documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics because it correctly focuses on the tool's beta nature rather than re-explaining the already-complete schema. 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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, explains it is the same universal router with identical tools/arguments/response shape, and explicitly distinguishes its purpose: testing candidate routing improvements live. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are unmistakable and sharply differentiated from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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?

Explicitly says to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies when no candidate is active it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving no ambiguity about invocation. It does not mention when not to use it, but the beta/experimental framing and comparison purpose give sufficient context for choosing it.

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