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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is currently identical to ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active, results are compared against the stable router for merges, and it does not fall back to anything. This fully discloses the experimental nature and current 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?

The description is informative and front-loaded with the key point (beta, identical router). It has a few redundant phrases, such as repeating 'same 5,801 tools, same arguments, same response shape' after calling it an 'identical universal router,' but overall it is concise and well-organized. It earns a 4 for being slightly wordy yet still efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one question parameter with aliases) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains the experimental status, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and that it's a full router. The only gap is the absence of an explicit response shape, but since it says 'same response shape' and the stable ask_pipeworx is a sibling, an agent can infer it. A 4 is appropriate.

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 all parameters documented as aliases for the 'question' field. The description adds no additional parameter details, but since the schema fully covers semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'same arguments' reinforces that the parameters match ask_pipeworx but doesn't add new meaning.

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 explicitly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes from the stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements, giving the agent a clear understanding of what this tool does and how it differs.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and the condition for selection, and clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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