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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It discloses that the tool is a full working router with no fallback, that candidate improvements may be live or inactive, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that outputs share the same response shape. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core beta-identical-router fact before explaining current state and usage. The retired-candidate date is slightly extraneous and the phrase 'same ... same ... same' is repetitive, but each sentence contributes useful behavioral or usage context.

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 one-required-parameter proxy tool with rich annotations, the description covers all needed calling context: what it does, how it differs from the stable sibling, when to use it, current behavioral status, fallback behavior, and response-shape compatibility with ask_pipeworx. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'same response shape' statement.

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 already documents every parameter, including aliases for 'question'. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, though it does reference 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. This meets the baseline for fully schema-covered parameters without going beyond it.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and states exactly what that means: the same universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes this experimental variant from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explaining the only meaningful difference is candidate routing improvements.

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 gives explicit usage direction: "Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing." It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, which clarifies its evaluation purpose. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the stable ask_pipeworx alternative is implied by the beta-vs-stable contrast.

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