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

Annotations already establish it as a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results come back ordered newest-first and each revision carries an active flag, which matters for choosing one to roll back to. No pagination or size limits are disclosed, keeping it below 5.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the first covers what is returned and how it's ordered, the second covers when to use it. Front-loaded with no filler.

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 full schema coverage and annotation safety flags, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the key returned attribute. Only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed.

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 description says nothing about pipeline_key, but the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the meaning of 'entry' versus delegate target keys. With the schema doing all the work, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a pipeline's revisions') plus scope details: ordering ('newest first') and the active marker. It's clearly distinguishable from get_pipeline_revision or list_pipelines, 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?

'Use it to find a revision to roll back to' gives a concrete selection scenario that implicitly routes to activate_pipeline_revision. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., use get_pipeline_revision for details of a single revision), so it falls 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.