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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context: no candidate routing change is currently active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and it is a fully working router rather than a fallback or stub.

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 appropriately sized and clearly organized: what it is, current state, how to use it, and what it is not. The repeated emphasis on identical behavior is somewhat redundant but each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It also covers current candidate status and the stable-router comparison context, so an agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to interpret results.

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% and the schema documents all six parameters, including aliases for the required 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which reinforces cross-tool equivalence but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 positions the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with an identical universal routing interface, and it distinguishes it from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements may be enabled. It does not use a crisp verb-plus-resource formulation, but the function and relationship to ask_pipeworx are unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx' when you want the newest routing, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so the guidance stops short of a full when/when-not contrast.

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