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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This clearly sets expectations about experimental behavior and current state.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the tool's identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx, then covers current state, usage, comparison purpose, and fallback in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value and none merely restates the title or schema.

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 routing tool with a single required question parameter and strong annotations, the description covers identity, differences, current operational state, when to use it, and what it does not do. It references the stable sibling for exact response shape and argument behavior, which is sufficient given the sibling is available in the same toolset.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters, so the schema already documents the question field and aliases. The description only adds 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not need to compensate for schema gaps. 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?

States precisely what it is: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and grounded siblings by emphasizing its experimental routing edge and current inactive candidate state.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly list exclusions or direct users to ask_pipeworx for stable needs, but the intended usage context is clear.

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