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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that routing improvements can be live during tests, that none is active as of 2026-07-26, and that this is a full working router rather than a thin fallback. It also states the response shape matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which is meaningful behavioral context. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the core identity and current status, then gives usage direction and a reassurance about full functionality. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, with some repetition of the idea that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with one required, well-documented parameter and safety annotations, the description covers current behavior, experimental nature, and full working status. It does not independently describe the response format, but it references ask_pipeworx's response shape as equivalent. This is reasonably complete in context.

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 already documents all parameters, including the required question field and aliases like q, text, input, and prompt, with 100% coverage. The description adds only that the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which provides no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter information.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable router by mentioning candidate routing improvements under test. It still relies somewhat on the agent already understanding what ask_pipeworx does, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and clarifies that no candidate is currently active so behavior matches stable. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not explicitly spell out when to prefer stable ask_pipeworx or the grounded variant, but gives sufficient direction for the beta/stable choice.

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