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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable context: it is a live experimental edge where candidate routing improvements are enabled whenever under test, results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, and no candidate is active right now (last retired 2026-07-26). This is transparent about the experimental nature and current behavior. It doesn't describe potential differences when a candidate is active, but the current state is clearly disclosed.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the essential point (beta, identical universal router), then explains the experimental routing and current status. Every sentence earns its place, though the sentence about 'Falls back to nothing' could be slightly clearer but is still informative. It is well-structured and not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and rich annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the experimental comparison process, current state, and that it is a full router. It could mention what happens when returning results or how the comparison manifests to the user, but the core usage is well covered.

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 'question' parameter well-documented including its aliases (query, q, prompt, text, input), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds that the same arguments are accepted as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but somewhat redundant. It doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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 states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,767 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting the routing improvements are experimental and currently inactive, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. The verb and resource are specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from ask_pipeworx_grounded or other siblings beyond the stable router.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It clarifies when to use it (wanting the newest routing) and that it is a full working router, not a fallback-only tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus ask_pipeworx_grounded or other research tools, but the comparison against the stable router is stated.

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