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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that it is a live beta with candidate routing improvements, that no candidate is currently active, and that it falls back to nothing (fully functional). This adds behavioral context not covered by 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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence serves a purpose: identifying the beta nature, clarifying current status, giving usage instruction, and dispelling fallback ambiguity. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a beta router tool: it references the stable counterpart, explains the comparison mechanism, and confirms full functionality. For an agent familiar with ask_pipeworx, this is complete, and the question parameter description covers usage.

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% with all six parameters being aliases for 'question'. The description merely references 'same arguments' without adding detail beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. Distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and explains its role as a router for natural language questions.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to its sibling ask_pipeworx.

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