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

The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond them: candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router rather than a degraded fallback. This explains the dynamic nature of the beta without contradicting 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 compact and front-loads the most important facts: beta status, parity with ask_pipeworx, and current state. The details about candidate retirement and comparison process are relevant and not wasted, though the sentence about outcome evidence is slightly more specific than necessary.

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 tells the agent that response shape and arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given that ask_pipeworx is a sibling tool. It does not describe the actual response format on its own, and there is no output schema, so a small gap remains, but the pointer to ask_pipeworx largely fills it.

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 input schema already documents the required question parameter and all five aliases, with 100% schema description coverage. The description only mentions 'same arguments' and does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score applies.

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 identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. This is clear enough to distinguish it from the stable ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded siblings, though it never states the underlying function of the router itself (e.g., answering questions by dispatching to tools).

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: when the newest routing is desired, and to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly since no candidate is active. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or when to prefer the stable version, but the experimental framing implies that.

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