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

Annotations already flag read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior; the description goes further by disclosing the beta state, that no candidate is currently active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly, that a candidate may be live under test, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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 parent relationship and quickly gives the key scoping sentence: current behavior matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. Every sentence earns its place, including the clarification that it does not fall back to anything.

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-question router with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It references the response shape as identical to ask_pipeworx and explains the experimental edge, though it relies on the sibling's documentation for concrete return details because no output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100%: question is described as a natural-language request and all five aliases are labeled in the schema. The description only adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is context about parity, not new meaning about how parameters should be populated.

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 over 5,908 tools with the same arguments and response shape, and frames the distinguishing behavior as experimental routing improvements. This separates it from both ask_pipeworx and the grounded sibling without needing to open the schema.

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 gives a concrete selection rule: use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, with results compared against the stable router. It names ask_pipeworx as the stable alternative, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this beta or how it relates to ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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