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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is an experimental edge that may enable live routing candidates, currently has no active candidate, is a full working router, and falls back to nothing. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose and current state are front-loaded, and each sentence contributes meaningful context. Some details, such as the retirement date and repeated emphasis on same arguments/response shape, are slightly redundant, but the description remains focused and reasonably concise.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's experimental nature, current behavior, relationship to ask_pipeworx, and fallback stance. Since there is no output schema, the 'same response shape' reference relies on the sibling ask_pipeworx documentation, but that dependency is acceptable given the sibling is available and the tool is explicitly a variant.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter, including the required question field and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It also clarifies that it may include candidate routing improvements and is currently identical to ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling tool while stating exactly what it 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also notes that currently no candidate is active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative-selection guidance.

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