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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only behavioral addition is the scope constraint that only ACTIVE revisions are considered (drafts excluded) and the framing that results represent archive blockers. That is useful but thin, and it does not explain why idempotentHint is false for a list operation.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the motivational clause placed last. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description tells the agent what will be returned conceptually (delegate blocks pointing at this pipeline) and why it matters. The remaining gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape or size of the result set, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself already explains pipeline_key, including the special 'entry' value. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter beyond restating that it identifies the pipeline receiving delegated requests, so 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 gives a specific verb (List) and a precisely qualified resource: delegate blocks in active pipeline revisions that hand requests to this pipeline. It also states the resource's meaning (archive blockers), which separates it from siblings like list_pipeline_revisions or get_pipeline_revision_references, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 'what stands in the way of archiving it' clause supplies a clear use context: consult this before archiving a pipeline. It does not state exclusions or name an alternative tool for other reference queries, so it stops short of a 5.

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