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 does add useful return-content context (each reference's state and activation blockers), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about volume, pagination, or how blockers are represented.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and the enumerated reference types front-loaded, and the value of the returned state ('what stands in the way of activating it') at the end. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration makes it heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what is returned (references plus their state and activation blockers), and the two required params are fully covered by the schema. Only pagination/size behavior and explicit sibling routing are 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (pipeline_key, revision) are documented in the schema, including the 'entry' convention and the pointer to list_pipeline_revisions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already carries, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('List everything a pipeline revision names') and enumerates the concrete reference kinds it covers (escalation paths, webhook endpoints, delegated pipelines, block dependencies). It distinguishes itself implicitly from the bare get_pipeline_revision / list_pipeline_revisions siblings, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'what stands in the way of activating it' suggests this is a pre-activation check against activate_pipeline_revision, but the description never states when to call it versus get_pipeline_revision or list_pipeline_uses. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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