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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be live intermittently, no candidate is active as of a specific date, and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that it is not a fallback or partial router, which addresses a likely misconception. Minor gap: it doesn't state how an agent can detect when a candidate is active, but the disclosure of current state is strong.

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 yet information-dense, with every sentence earning its place: what it is, what is different, current state, usage instruction, and a clarifying non-fallback statement. The beta status and current equivalence are front-loaded, and the 'falls back to nothing' clarification prevents a likely misinterpretation. No wasted words.

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 universal router with one required string parameter, four documented aliases, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the experimental nature, current parity with the stable tool, and how results are evaluated. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to decide whether to prefer it over 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% and the schema already documents question plus four aliases (q, text, input, prompt). The description adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful for transfer but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router accepting the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape, with candidate routing improvements. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and explains its current equivalence. The verb 'ask' plus resource 'pipeworx' and the beta framing 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 states explicitly to use this exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also preempts a common misreading by stating it falls back to nothing and is a full working router, just the experimental edge. This gives clear when-to-use and behavioral guidance relative to the stable sibling.

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