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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: only *active* pipeline revisions are returned, which tells the agent the result set is filtered rather than exhaustive.

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 sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and a colon-delimited rationale that adds value rather than padding. 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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the returned set represents (pipeline revisions that block archiving). It stops short of describing ordering or whether revisions can be returned for other endpoint states.

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 (endpoint_key) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description refers to 'this endpoint' but adds no format or lookup detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the active pipeline revisions whose webhook blocks post to this endpoint') and even supplies the reason for the query. An agent can distinguish it from list_webhook_endpoints, list_pipeline_uses, and list_pipeline_revisions without opening any schema.

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?

'what stands in the way of archiving it' clearly frames the scenario that selects this tool (checking blockers before archiving a webhook endpoint). It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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