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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the beta nature, the fact that routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that none is active right now, and that it matches ask_pipeworx exactly currently. It also clarifies it is not a fallback but a full working router. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 key identity (beta, identical to ask_pipeworx) and current state, then gives usage guidance and clarifies a potential misconception. Every sentence earns its place, and it's concise for a tool of this complexity. No waste.

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 router with 5,801 tools, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the experimental nature, current state, usage instructions, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'same response shape' statement. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, with all six parameters being aliases for 'question'. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the schema fully documents them. The mention of 'same arguments' is contextual and doesn't add semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high 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 explicitly states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. The purpose is specific and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 instructs to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate) and that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This gives clear when-to-use and why, with implicit contrast to the stable sibling.

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