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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is lighter. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them by disclosing result ordering and the active-revision marker, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or behavior on an unknown pipeline_key.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the what and the ordering constraint are front-loaded, and the usage hint follows immediately.

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 a single schema-documented parameter and no output schema, an agent has enough to call it, and the description usefully sketches the return shape. It could still say more about volume or limits for pipelines with many revisions, which is the only real 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema itself explains that 'entry' is the entry pipeline and other keys are delegate-block targets. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (a pipeline's revisions) with two scope qualifiers: ordering (newest first) and content (which revision is active). This cleanly separates it from get_pipeline_revision, activate_pipeline_revision, and list_pipeline_uses in the sibling set.

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?

"Use it to find a revision to roll back to" gives a concrete decision context that implicitly routes the agent toward activate_pipeline_revision as the follow-up. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., use get_pipeline_revision when you already know the revision id), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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