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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is an experimental but fully functional router, that no routing candidate is currently active, and that it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It also clarifies there is no fallback, which prevents an agent from assuming a degraded or partial tool. This is valuable behavioral context not available from the schema or 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 dense but reasonably sized, and it front-loads the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') before elaborating. Each sentence contributes either behavioral context, usage guidance, or a clarification. The historical detail about when the last candidate was retired adds context but is slightly beyond what a caller needs, keeping it from a 5.

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 single-required-parameter router with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool is, what it currently does, how to use it, and what will happen to its results. The note that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx covers return expectations even without an output schema. An agent has enough to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all five aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, only a general statement that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 and as a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the beta from the stable sibling by explaining that it carries experimental routing improvements. The verb 'ask' plus 'router' makes the function unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context: use this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It names the stable sibling and explains the beta's role in comparing results, giving an agent enough basis to choose it. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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