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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: identical routing to ask_pipeworx when no candidate is active, the live-testing behavior when a candidate is under test, and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. For a beta tool, disclosing the live-testing aspect is valuable transparency beyond the annotations. It doesn't over-explain return values, which is acceptable given the identical response shape is stated.

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 organized: it leads with the beta identity, states the current exact-match behavior, gives usage direction, and closes with the fallback clarification. It could be trimmed slightly — the parenthetical list of tool/argument/response sameness repeats some schema information — but every sentence carries functional information. The front-loading of 'identical universal router' is strong and immediately scopes the tool.

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 router tool with six alias parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the routing scope (5,767 tools), current behavior (matches ask_pipeworx), how to use it, and what happens with candidates. The only minor gap is not listing which sibling named 'ask_pipeworx' is the stable comparison point — but the sibling list includes ask_pipeworx, making that inferable. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing essential is missing.

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% with all six parameters documented as aliases for question. The description emphasizes 'same arguments' and says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx. While it doesn't restate each parameter, it adds the crucial semantic that all six parameters are interchangeable aliases, complementing the schema's per-field notes. The explicit 'same arguments' statement plus the alias documentation gives an agent everything needed to format calls correctly.

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 this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly calling it an identical universal router with the same 5,767 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It clearly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by noting candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge. The current inactive state (no candidate active, retired 2026-07-26) precisely defines what it does right now: match ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison purpose against the stable router, and explicitly says it falls back to nothing — it is a full working router. This directly routes an agent to use it as an experimental alternative, and the current-state note removes ambiguity about whether the beta behaves differently right now.

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