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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and the tool produces results specifically for comparison against the stable router. This goes beyond the structured annotations by revealing the experimental, evaluative nature and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx.

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 relationship to ask_pipeworx and the beta purpose. It contains a small amount of redundancy ('No candidate is active right now' and 'this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' overlap, and the evaluation point is stated twice) and an arguably unnecessary date, but each sentence contributes useful context and the structure is easy to scan.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it references the sibling ask_pipeworx for response shape, explains current status, and clarifies that it is a fully functional router. It does not independently explain what kinds of questions it can answer, but the 'universal router' phrasing plus the pointer to ask_pipeworx makes this sufficient for selection among the many siblings.

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 documented as aliases for the singular 'question' parameter, which already carries a clear natural-language description. The tool description adds only 'same arguments' as a reference to ask_pipeworx, not enriching parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental routing candidate machinery, and explicitly notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the evaluation context (results compared against the stable router) and clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback. It could be stronger by stating when NOT to use it (e.g., preferring stable results), but the condition 'want the newest routing' is a clear enough selector.

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