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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it may have candidate routing improvements live during evaluation, currently has no active candidate, matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of the beta behavior.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes identity and capabilities, the second gives current status, the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth clarifies that this is a real router despite being experimental. The description is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

The description covers identity, current behavior, how to use it, and how it relates to the stable router. Since the output schema is absent, noting that it has the same response shape as ask_pipeworx is sufficient. Combined with schema and annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 input schema already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with the same universal routing capabilities, same tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It explains the one functional difference — experimental candidate routing improvements — and implicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not give an explicit 'when not to use' or name a specific alternative for stable needs, though ask_pipeworx is clearly implied.

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