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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description correctly adds what annotations cannot express: behavior is dynamic ('candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test'), the current state is inactive ('the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26'), and it is a standalone router ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'). 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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: identity/scope, current candidate state, usage condition, and the no-fallback clarification that prevents an agent from assuming a proxy architecture. The critical identity is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is no 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 complex, dynamically-behaving router with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, live-testing state, usage timing, and comparison mechanism. The only deferral is response shape, which is anchored via 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx — a reasonable shorthand, though the description itself never states what the response contains.

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 coverage is 100%: question plus five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) are all documented with clear descriptions. The description adds only 'same arguments' as a cross-reference to ask_pipeworx, which confirms parity but provides no new semantic detail. 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,908 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' — a specific identity with scope and a clear ask-and-route function. It also distinguishes itself from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by positioning it as 'the experimental edge,' so an agent can differentiate it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' explicitly names the trigger condition and the alternative tool. The current-state disclosure ('No candidate is active right now... this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') further refines when the beta is behaviorally identical to the stable router — exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs.

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