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

The description is unusually transparent: it explains that behavior changes whenever a candidate routing improvement is under live test, that no candidate is active right now, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, that it does not fall back to anything, and that it is a full working router. This goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations and gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's dynamic nature.

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 compact paragraph where each sentence adds relevant information: what the tool is, current candidate status, usage guidance, and the fact that it is a full working tool. It is somewhat dense and includes a very specific retirement date, but it does not contain filler.

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-required-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers identity, current behavior, usage context, and the experimental nature. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient because that sibling exists, though the description does not independently describe the output format.

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 required question parameter and its aliases already fully described in the input schema. The description adds only 'same arguments' relative to ask_pipeworx, which does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements and notes that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It could be stronger by stating plainly that the tool answers natural-language questions, but the title, schema, and 'full working router' phrasing make the purpose sufficiently clear.

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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also states that no candidate is currently active. It stops short of explicitly saying 'do not use this for stable/production work,' but 'beta' and 'experimental edge' imply that distinction.

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