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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are limited to ACTIVE pipeline revisions, and two distinct reference kinds are enumerated (block's path vs. default). It does not address the odd idempotentHint=false on a read-only lister, nor pagination.

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 sentence, verb first, no filler. The colon construction packs the return semantics and the motivation into the same breath without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: active pipeline revisions, categorized by how they reference the path. Combined with the stated archival motivation and the annotation-covered safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The escalation path's key.'), so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description says only 'this path' and adds no format, key syntax, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: list the active pipeline revisions that name this escalation path. It also clarifies the naming modes (a block's path or the default), which distinguishes it from generic listers such as list_escalation_paths or list_pipeline_revisions. It never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 trailing clause 'what stands in the way of archiving it' implies the use case (pre-flight check before archive_escalation_path), but usage is only implied, never stated as an instruction. No when-not guidance and no explicit alternative is named.

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