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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are live only when under test, none is currently active, it fully matches the stable router right now, and it is a complete working router rather than a fallback.

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 well-organized: definition, current status, usage directive, and caveat each earn their place. The key information about matching ask_pipeworx and being a full router is front-loaded.

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 single-required-parameter tool with a rich annotation set, the description covers what the tool is, its current state, how to invoke it, and the experimental context. It does not detail the response shape, but it explicitly states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient.

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 all six parameters clearly documented as aliases for the single required question field. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the full burden.

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 with the same universal routing behavior, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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