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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: it is the experimental edge, no candidate is currently under test, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This is helpful and does not contradict the 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?

The description is four sentences and each adds value: beta status, current equivalence, usage condition, and fallback assurance. It is front-loaded with the core fact and does not waste words.

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 complex universal router, the description adequately explains the experimental nature, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and how results are used for merging decisions. It relies on the ask_pipeworx sibling for response shape details, which is acceptable given no output schema and strong read-only/idempotent annotations.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters at 100% with descriptions (mostly aliases for question), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,738 tools, arguments, and response shape. The verb ('ask') and resource ('Pipeworx universal router') are clear, and the beta/experimental distinction separates it from siblings. It doesn't explicitly say 'answers natural-language questions by routing to tools', but the comparison to ask_pipeworx implies it.

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' and clarifies that no candidate is active so it currently matches ask_pipeworx. It gives a clear condition for when to choose this tool over the stable version, but doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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