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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is a live full working router, not a fallback stub; experimental routing candidates may be active; and none are active right now as of a specific date. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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-structured, front-loading the beta relationship and current identical behavior before explaining the experimental context. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: matching behavior, experimental state, usage guidance, and lack of fallback. It is slightly verbose but not padded.

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 100% schema coverage, rich read-only/idempotent annotations, and clear sibling context, the description is nearly complete. It explains current behavior, experimental status, and usage. The only notable gap is that while it says 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, it does not describe what that response shape actually is, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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%, with question and its five aliases fully described in the input schema. The tool description only says 'same arguments' without adding parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema already carries that burden. 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 states that this is the Beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental candidate-routing status. A small deduction because it never states the underlying user-facing function in plain terms, relying on the name 'Ask' and the router metaphor.

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 wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the alternative stable router is clearly implied.

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