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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: candidate improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This appropriately warns about the experimental nature without contradicting 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 is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: it covers beta status, identical behavior, current candidate state, usage guidance, and the fact that it is a full router. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no meaningless filler.

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 that this is an alias-like beta router with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool is, how to use it, and current behavior. It mentions the same response shape and the live candidate-testing context, which together give an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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, describing all six parameters as aliases for the same question string. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add 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 states a specific purpose: a beta version of ask_pipeworx that is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge.

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 does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or alternative tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the intended context is clear.

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