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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description needs to add operational nuance. It does: live candidate routing can be toggled, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it deliberately has no fallback. This gives agents the key state-dependent behavior beyond the static hints.

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 identity and current state, then provides usage guidance, then clarifies the no-fallback behavior. The five sentences are mostly non-redundant, though the final two could be tightened without losing much.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, parity with ask_pipeworx, current behavioral state, and absence of fallback. It points to ask_pipeworx for response shape rather than describing it directly, which is adequate for an agent already aware of the stable sibling but not fully self-contained.

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 fully documents the required 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description’s 'same arguments' note adds mild reassurance but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter semantics already present.

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 immediately identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by mentioning candidate routing improvements and its experimental role.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx 'when you want the newest routing,' giving a clear selection condition and naming the stable alternative. It does not spell out a strong when-not-to-use case, but the beta/experimental framing makes the intended scope clear.

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