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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the live candidate-testing behavior, the fact that no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and the important disclosure that it 'falls back to nothing' — it is a full working router, not a degraded experiment. 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?

The description is information-dense and front-loads the most important fact (beta version of ask_pipeworx). It is slightly verbose with woven parentheticals, but every sentence earns its place: beta status, candidate behavior, current parity, usage directive, and fallback nature.

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 router tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the decision-relevant facts: what it is, how it differs from the stable sibling, its current state, and how results are used. It references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx rather than detailing return values, which is acceptable since no output schema exists but the sibling supplies that detail.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description only references 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is an acceptable baseline-3 situation.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and explains exactly what it does: an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, with candidate routing improvements. It is explicitly distinguished from the stable ask_pipeworx and the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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?

The description states explicitly: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It names the stable alternative and gives a clear selection condition, though it could have been stronger by explicitly stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when production stability is required).

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