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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: candidate routing improvements may be active, no candidate is currently active since 2026-07-26, and the tool is a full working router with no fallback. This clarifies the live experimental behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loads the beta relationship and current equivalence. Each sentence earns its place, covering identity, current state, usage guidance, and a reassurance about functionality. Slight redundancy exists between 'identical' and 'same tools, same arguments, same response shape,' but overall it remains tight.

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 tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool is, how to use it, what the current experimental state is, and that it is fully functional. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx.

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 the question parameter and aliases already fully documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and does not add parameter-level meaning. 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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: a universal router named ask_pipeworx_beta with 5,908 tools, same arguments, and same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx as the experimental candidate-routing variant, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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 condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that results are compared against the stable router, implying it is for experimental evaluation rather than preferred stable use. It does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the condition for choosing this beta variant is still clear.

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