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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that no candidate improvement is currently active, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is genuinely valuable operational context an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: identity, current behavior, usage intent, and the no-fallback guarantee are all covered without padding. The most decision-relevant information, beta status and identity with ask_pipeworx, is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool: it explains current behavior, how it differs from the stable sibling, what response shape to expect, and that it is fully functional. With the annotations covering safety and idempotence, and the mention of the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, no critical decision-making context 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 coverage is 100%, with the `question` parameter fully documented and aliases explicitly enumerated in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but it does note that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is contextually useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router offering the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge, while clarifying that it currently behaves identically. This is far beyond a tautology.

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 explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not discuss ask_pipeworx_grounded or other siblings as alternatives, but within the beta/stable comparison it gives clear usage context. The guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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