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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent and non-destructive hints, the description adds valuable live-experiment context: candidate routing improvements are enabled whenever under test, the last one was retired on 2026-07-26, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that it is a real working router, not a degraded fallback. 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 four sentences are dense and front-loaded with the most important information. The enumeration 'same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape' is somewhat redundant with 'identical', but every sentence contributes distinct selection or behavioral information.

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 tool with a simple single natural-language input and no output schema, the description provides enough information: what the tool is, when to use it, how it compares to the stable router, and its current exact behavior. The 'same response shape' reference adequately covers return-value expectations by pointing to 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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including the question field and its aliases, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It only restates that the tool has 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and explicitly calls it 'a full working router'. It differentiates the beta from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded sibling by its experimental routing role.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies that there is no fallback, warning agents not to treat it as a stub, and provides current-state guidance by noting no candidate is active right now.

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