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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: candidate routing is enabled live only during tests, the last candidate was retired on 2026-07-26, and it never falls back to another router. This volatility disclosure is exactly the kind of thing structured fields cannot convey.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the beta/identity fact before the operational caveats. Slightly padded by the defensive clause 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge,' which restates the already-established idea, but overall it is tight for the amount of context conveyed.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately states that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, closing the return-value gap. Combined with the caveat that current behavior is identical to the stable router, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though nothing is said about latency, rate limits, or question-format expectations.

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%, and the schema fully documents the six alias parameters for 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no syntax, length, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the tool as the beta twin of ask_pipeworx and specifies scope concretely (same 5,961 tools, same arguments, same response shape), which clearly separates it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, the actual function is defined by reference to a sibling rather than stated directly — an agent must already know what ask_pipeworx does.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and notes results feed comparison against the stable router. It also flags that no candidate is currently active, implying no benefit right now, but does not explicitly state when an agent should prefer the stable sibling instead.

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