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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral filter the schema does not: only *active* pipeline revisions are counted, so archived revisions will not appear — exactly the detail that matters when judging archive safety.

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 its scope front-loaded, followed by the motivating use case. No filler and nothing restated from the name or title.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what the result represents (pipeline revisions referencing this path) and why it matters. It stops short of describing result fields or ordering, which a caller might still want.

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?

The single path_key parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the key's format or origin beyond what the schema already says.

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 (List) and a precise resource subset (active pipeline revisions naming this escalation path), including the two ways a pipeline can reference it (block path or default). An agent can distinguish it from list_pipeline_uses or list_webhook_endpoint_uses without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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' supplies a concrete usage context: call this before archiving an escalation path to check for blocking references. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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