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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live while under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool does not fall back to anything—it is a full working router. These details address experimental state, result comparison, and failure behavior, which are not captured by the 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 front-loads the essential identity and then adds behavioral context about candidates and fallback. It is slightly repetitive—'identical', 'matches exactly', and 'full working router' convey the same idea—and the retirement date is optional detail, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple single-required-parameter question tool, the description covers experimental state, fallback behavior, usage condition, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It notes the same response shape, but because there is no output schema, the agent must already know ask_pipeworx's response format to fully anticipate the return value.

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 already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, including question and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and otherwise does not add parameter-level meaning, 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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx and positions it as an identical universal router for natural-language questions, with experimental routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by the beta/testing purpose, though the core action is stated mostly by reference ('Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx') rather than by a direct verb+resource phrase.

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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This gives a clear condition and names the relevant alternative, though it does not explicitly spell out a when-not-to-use case beyond the implication that stable routing is available via ask_pipeworx.

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