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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important runtime context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever one is under test, no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a full working router with no fallback, preventing a serious misconception about behavior. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loads the core identity: a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical behavior. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: candidate routing behavior, current inactive candidate status, usage direction, and no-fallback guarantee. Minor redundancy between 'identical' and 'use it exactly like' prevents a higher score.

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?

Given the strong annotations and complete input schema, the description provides the needed extra context: experimental status, live candidate behavior, current parity with the stable router, and how results are used for merge decisions. It does not detail the response format, but 'same response shape' combined with the sibling ask_pipeworx is enough for an agent to infer expected output. Overall, the definition is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 covers all six parameters at 100%, including question and its aliases, so the schema itself already documents parameter meaning. The description only adds that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is contextually useful but not necessary for parameter understanding. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and states that it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. This makes the resource and scope specific and clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental routing edge. Though 'routing' could be more plainly explained, the question parameter and tool count make the purpose unambiguous.

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 newest routing is desired and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use condition or name other alternatives, but the current no-candidate status and the direct comparison to ask_pipeworx give the agent actionable guidance.

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