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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds transparency by disclosing that no candidate is active right now and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, which is useful beta-context beyond 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 a single focused paragraph front-loaded with the beta relationship and the 'identical router' framing. No repetition of schema details beyond the alias mention, and the caveat about no active candidate is efficiently embedded.

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 tool with no output schema and a simple single-required-parameter interface, the description covers the key context: what it is, how it differs from the stable sibling, when it's currently identical, and what happens to results. It doesn't explain return shape, but the description explicitly states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which effectively covers that.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the alias usage note ('accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases') but that's mostly repeating schema info, so it just meets the baseline without adding much new meaning.

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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical routing, arguments, and response shape, and explicitly names ask_pipeworx as the sibling it is equivalent to. It distinguishes itself by being the experimental candidate edge while clarifying that no candidate is currently active.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, though it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives beyond noting the stable router. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to select between this and ask_pipeworx, but a more explicit when-not-to-use statement would strengthen it.

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