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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is active right now, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also reassures that this is a full working router, not a stub. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only, idempotent, open-world hints.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds relevant context: beta status, identical behavior, live candidate testing, current no-op candidate, and usage direction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'same' three times and the slightly theatrical 'Falls back to nothing' clause.

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 one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key contextual facts: it is experimental, currently identical to ask_pipeworx, supports the same arguments, and returns the same response shape. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but explicitly defers to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no new detail about parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full 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 immediately identifies this as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and defines it as an 'identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting the candidate routing improvements and experimental edge. This is a specific, resource-bound statement that separates it 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?

The description explicitly says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and references the stable router for comparison. This gives a clear context for when to choose this tool over ask_pipeworx. It does not provide an explicit exclusion case, but the alternative is clearly implied.

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