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

The description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that results are compared against the stable router, and that it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and does not contradict them.

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 repetitive, stating the identical nature, the same arguments, and the same response shape multiple times. The key points are front-loaded, but the repeated caveats about candidate status and the ambiguous 'Falls back to nothing' phrase reduce clarity.

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?

It references ask_pipeworx for response shape and usage, but does not describe what kind of answer the router returns, how results are presented, or what 'falls back to nothing' means concretely. Given no output schema, this leaves some operational context underspecified.

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 schema already covers all six parameters, and the description adds useful clarification that the question field accepts natural language and that q, prompt, text, input, and query are aliases. This meaningfully supplements the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing experimental routing changes, making its purpose reasonably clear even if it relies on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx 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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing behavior is desired, and notes that no candidate is currently active so it matches the stable version. This gives usable guidance, though it does not contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when the stable version should be preferred.

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