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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral nuance: routing behavior can change live when a candidate is under test, currently no candidate is active, and the tool always functions as a full working router with no fallback. This clarifies variability, current parity with the stable router, and removes ambiguity about degraded behavior.

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?

Four sentences, each contributing meaningful information: identity/differentiation, current test status, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The description is slightly dense with repeated phrases like 'same...same...same' and 'exactly...exactly,' but there is no real filler. Critical information is front-loaded, and the overall 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 simple one-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well: it explains the experimental nature, current parity with stable, the full-router guarantee, and the fact that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx for full output-shape details, but that sibling is available in the tool list. A short example or explicit mention of what the router returns would make it fully standalone.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage: question is described and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) are explicitly documented. The description adds no per-parameter semantics, but it does reinforce that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which helps transfer knowledge. 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 opens by identifying the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and immediately states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable sibling by explaining that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test. An agent can distinguish this from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies current operational status (no candidate active, exactly matches ask_pipeworx) and explicitly says it is not a fallback. It stops short of explicitly telling agents when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead, though that is strongly implied by the beta/experimental framing.

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