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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, none is currently active, results are compared against the stable router, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This gives an agent an accurate model of experimental behavior without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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 relatively long but front-loaded with the key fact that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx. It economically conveys the experimental nature, current state, usage instruction, and relationship to the stable router. Minor redundancy ('same X, same Y, same Z') and a specific retirement date add slight noise but do not undermine clarity.

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 tool with one truly meaningful parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it is, what it does, how to invoke it, current experimental status, and how it relates to the stable counterpart. The 'same response shape' reference covers return expectations adequately.

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 has 100% coverage and already documents all six parameters as aliases for 'question'. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema fully explains the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx and states that it is a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable router via candidate routing improvements. However, it relies on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx itself does; the basic ask-and-answer function is only implied through 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 explicitly states when to use this tool — 'when you want the newest routing' — and instructs the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that it is not a fallback and that it is a fully working router. It does not enumerate when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for routing between siblings.

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