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

Beyond the annotations already marking this as read-only and non-destructive, the description discloses meaningful dynamic behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only during tests, none are currently active, and results are compared against the stable router. This gives the agent accurate expectations about the tool's experimental edge and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx.

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 core identity and purpose, followed by current status, usage guidance, and a reassurance that it is a fully functional router. It is slightly wordy with details like the retirement date, but every sentence serves a purpose and no critical information is buried.

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?

Given the annotations and the explicit reference to ask_pipeworx for exact arguments and response shape, the description is largely complete for safe invocation. It tells the agent the tool is a full working router, not a stub, and how it currently behaves. It does not describe the return value format itself, but that is delegated to the asking_tool it mirrors.

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 has 100% coverage, documenting the required 'question' parameter and five aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, so it neither improves nor weakens what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing improvements. However, it leans on the sibling tool's identity to fully specify the core action, so it stops short of a fully self-contained definition.

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 like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, which names the closest alternative and the condition for selecting this tool. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when stable results are required.

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