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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: that it is a full working router with no fallback, that candidate improvements may be live during tests, and that the last candidate was retired on a specific date. No contradiction with 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 longer than minimal but each sentence earns its place: identity, behavioral equivalence, current status, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core message.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys response-shape compatibility by referencing ask_pipeworx, covers current routing state, and explains the experimental nature. It could be slightly more explicit about how to detect when a candidate is active, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and documents the aliases thoroughly. The description adds only that arguments match ask_pipeworx and that 'question' is the primary input, which is consistent but does not meaningfully enhance what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal routing behavior, and explicitly frames it as the experimental edge. It differentiates from the stable router and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by naming the candidate-routing improvement purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly since no candidate is active. This gives a clear decision rule and names the comparison context against the stable router.

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