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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by clarifying that it is a full working router with no fallback path and that its results are compared against the stable router. It does not mention latency, cost, or failure modes of the experimental routing, which would be the remaining valuable disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the beta identity and the one fact that matters most (currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and it is appropriately sized for a router tool. There is mild redundancy in 'same 6,705 tools, same arguments, same response shape' and the closing 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' restates the same reassurance.

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?

With no output schema, the description substitutes a comparative statement about the response shape ('same... as ask_pipeworx') rather than describing it directly, which is adequate for an agent already familiar with the sibling. The live-testing status and current no-candidate state are disclosed, so the agent has what it needs to decide whether to call it.

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 every one of the 8 properties (including the seven aliases) is documented in the schema itself. The description only says 'same arguments', adding nothing about the alias set or the natural-language question format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact ancestor tool ('identical universal router... same arguments, same response shape' as ask_pipeworx) and states precisely what makes this one different: candidate routing improvements enabled live during tests. An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' gives an explicit selecting condition versus the stable sibling. It is slightly weakened by the admission that no candidate is active right now and this 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', which leaves the agent to infer that there is no practical reason to prefer it today, and it never contrasts against ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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