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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that this is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements that may change live, that no candidate is currently active, and that it 'falls back to nothing' — meaning it is a fully working router, not a degraded stub. This experimental nature is valuable behavioral context not present in 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 a single solid paragraph that front-loads the beta identity and current-state equivalence to ask_pipeworx, then explains the routing experiment and reassures that this is a full working router. It is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place: identity, status, usage guidance, and fallback behavior are all covered without repetition.

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 single-parameter routing tool with 100% schema coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the experimental nature, current parity with the stable router, and how results are used. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape in detail, but since there is no output schema and the description says the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, an agent familiar with the sibling can infer it. The beta/non-stability caveat is the most important context and it is fully covered.

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%, so the schema already documents that question is the single required parameter and lists five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) all mapped to question. The description confirms the same arguments as ask_pipeworx but doesn't add new semantic detail about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,756 tools and arguments. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly when no candidate is active. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool is and how it relates to its sibling.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and contrasts it with the stable router for comparison purposes. It also notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, giving clear context on when to choose this tool over ask_pipeworx. This is strong guidance for tool selection.

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