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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: candidate routing improvements may be live, the last candidate was retired on a specific date, and current behavior is exactly equivalent to the stable router. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious runtime state an agent needs.

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 well-structured sentences front-load the tool's identity, then current candidate status, then usage guidance, then a reassurance about fallback. Every sentence adds meaningful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 high complexity, the description covers all critical operational facts: current equivalence to stable, experimental nature, comparison role, and that it is fully functional with no fallback. The response shape is delegated to the ask_pipeworx reference, which is reasonable given sibling context.

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 question and all aliases fully documented. The description adds only that the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but not necessary to compensate for any schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing the experimental routing improvements, so an agent can immediately understand what it is and how it differs from siblings.

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 instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes the current state: no candidate is active, so it matches the stable router exactly. It also explains the comparison purpose against the stable router and clarifies that there is no fallback mode because this is a full working router.

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