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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags. It discloses the live-testing nature of the router, the current absence of an active candidate, the comparison against the stable router for merging decisions, and explicitly states it is a full working router with no fallback. This level of detail is especially valuable for an experimental variant.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: the beta relationship and identical scope, the current candidate status, the usage instruction, and the clarification that this is a complete working router. The structure front-loads the most important distinction (beta vs stable), followed by relevant caveats and safety against misinterpretation. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description is thorough for an experimental variant: current state, relationship to the stable sibling, usage condition, and behavioral expectations are all covered. The only minor gap is that it assumes prior understanding of what ask_pipeworx actually does (e.g., answering questions by routing across a large toolset), rather than stating it directly. However, given the sibling list, schema, and annotations, the description is near-complete.

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%, and all six parameters are aliases for the single required 'question' field, so the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not required given the high schema coverage. 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by noting it is the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. This gives a specific resource and differentiates it from its siblings without needing to inspect any schemas.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' It also clarifies the current state ('No candidate is active right now... so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') and sets expectations about experimental status and fallback behavior. This is direct, actionable guidance that distinguishes it from the stable alternative.

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