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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description usefully adds that inactive revisions are retrievable and that blocks are returned, but says nothing about idempotency (annotations set idempotentHint=false, which is not explained) or about auth/permission 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier and return content are packed into one clause and nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the definition covers purpose, scope, and return content adequately. With no output schema, a slightly richer note about what 'blocks' contains would be ideal, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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% and both parameters carry descriptions, including the workflow hint that revision numbers come from list_pipeline_revisions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one pipeline revision') and scopes it ('active or not'), which implicitly distinguishes a single-item read from the list_pipeline_revisions sibling. It does not explicitly name how it differs from get_pipeline or get_pipeline_revision_references, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. 'Active or not' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when to reach for this versus get_pipeline or list_pipeline_revisions.

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