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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, it discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that this is a full working router with no fallback, and that results are used to decide merges. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about experimental variability.

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 the beta identity and provides useful context in four sentences. It is slightly repetitive with phrases like 'identical', 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx', and the exact retirement date is unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, it explicitly states the response shape is the same as ask_pipeworx and fully explains the beta status, current behavior, and intended use. Annotations cover safety, so nothing essential for invoking this tool is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters as aliases for question with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and describes it as a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing status.

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 this exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted and explains how results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the grounded alternative, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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