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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that this is a full working router with no fallback. This gives an accurate behavioral model for a live experimental tool.

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 front-loaded with the essential beta/identity statement and contains useful operational detail. It is slightly redundant in repeating that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, but the extra context about live candidates and the retirement date is valuable.

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 single-string-input router with no output schema, the description covers the relationship to ask_pipeworx, current active state, expected usage pattern, and experimental nature. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret it as a working router rather than a stub.

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 description is not required to explain parameters. It does mention that arguments match ask_pipeworx, but that adds little beyond the already detailed schema, especially since all six parameters are documented as aliases of question.

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?

Description explicitly identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and defines it as an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and the grounded variant by positioning this as the experimental routing edge.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This is enough for an agent to decide between the beta and stable siblings, even though a direct 'don't use when stability is required' note is not stated.

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