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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a full working router (not a stub), it falls back to nothing, it may have experimental routing changes enabled live, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. One minor gap is not stating explicitly that results may vary from the stable router even when a candidate is active, though this is implied.

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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the essential beta distinction, then provides the current status and usage directive. The sentence about falls back to nothing is slightly redundant with 'full working router' but it does clarify a potential misconception. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, current behavior, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It does not describe the response shape, but since it explicitly says 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, an agent can refer to that sibling's documentation. The main missing piece is concrete criteria for when to prefer this beta over ask_pipeworx beyond 'newest routing' and a mention of ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded alternatives, but the description is still reasonably complete for an experimental variant.

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 parameters are documented as aliases for 'question', with 'question' itself fully described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not extra detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb+resource ('ask_pipeworx') and immediately distinguishes this beta variant from the stable tool by saying it is an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements enabled when under test. It also explicitly names the sibling ask_pipeworx and clarifies that currently no candidate is active, so it behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx. This makes the tool's identity and scope 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 explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains the beta context, including that no candidate is currently active and that results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling, though it could name ask_pipeworx_grounded as a specific alternative for grounded routing.

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