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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the beta nature, stating that no candidate is currently active and that it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which sets expectations for potential future behavioral changes. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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 somewhat verbose and contains redundancy, such as repeating 'identical universal router' and 'same arguments, same response shape' in close proximity. The phrase 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' is slightly confusing. It is structured in clear sentences but could be more concise without losing meaning.

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?

Given that the tool is a router with many underlying tools, the description provides sufficient context by stating it has the same 5,801 tools, same arguments, and same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that it is a full working router, not a stub or fallback. This is complete for an agent familiar with the sibling tool, and no output schema is present to contradict the description.

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?

All six parameters are documented, with the main 'question' parameter having a clear description: 'Your question or request in natural language.' The aliases are clearly described as such, making their purpose unambiguous. Since schema coverage is 100% and the main parameter adds meaningful semantic detail, this scores above the baseline.

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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router for asking questions. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being a testbed for routing improvements, which gives a specific purpose. The verb 'ask' is implicit in the name and context, and the description provides enough detail to differentiate it from ask_pipeworx.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also mentions that results are compared against the stable router, implying that for stable behavior one should use ask_pipeworx. This provides clear guidance on when to prefer this beta over the stable alternative.

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