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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is an experimental edge with possibly live routing candidates, currently has no active candidate, exactly matches ask_pipeworx today, and is a full working router rather than a stub. This prevents an agent from misjudging it as dangerous or non-functional. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with identity, followed by current status, usage guidance, and a clarifying note. There is slight redundancy in stating both that it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but the overall structure is efficient and every detail serves a purpose.

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 single-question router with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, how it currently behaves, when to prefer it, and that responses match ask_pipeworx. It does not describe the return value shape directly, but the pointer to ask_pipeworx compensates, and the tool is simple enough that this is not a serious 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%, and the input schema fully documents the required question parameter along with its five aliases. The description only repeats 'same arguments' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and an identical universal router over 5,798 tools, making its purpose evident and distinguishing it from the stable sibling. It relies on the noun 'router' rather than an explicit verb like 'answers', but the intent is still unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names ask_pipeworx as the stable alternative and explains that results are compared against it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the experimental-versus-stable contrast provides enough guidance.

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