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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: candidate routing improvements may be live, no candidate is active currently, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and it is a fully functional router rather than a fallback stub. It also clarifies that results are compared for merge decisions, which is useful contextual behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: it establishes beta status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current active state, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and full functionality. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: identical arguments and response shape, experimental routing changes, current no-op candidate state, and the fact that it is fully functional. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without consulting additional resources.

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%, with the schema already documenting 'question' and all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.

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, a universal router, and explicitly states it is identical to ask_pipeworx in tools, arguments, and response shape. It also differentiates it from the stable sibling by noting it runs candidate routing improvements under test. An agent can immediately understand what it does and how it relates to ask_pipeworx.

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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison role against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer ask_pipeworx instead, but the experimental framing and current-match note imply the stable alternative.

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