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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact beyond the annotations: only *active* pipeline revisions are returned, and those results are precisely what would block archiving. Return shape/pagination is not described, but with annotations carrying safety that is a minor gap.

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 motivating context trailing. No filler or repetition of the 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 enumeration with no output schema, the description conveys the entity returned, the relation that qualifies it, and why an agent would want it. Minor unknowns (whether duplicates per pipeline are collapsed, result ordering) remain but are not blockers.

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 single endpoint_key parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (list) and a precise resource: active pipeline revisions whose webhook blocks post to this endpoint. This distinguishes it from adjacent list_*_uses tools and from get_webhook_endpoint by naming the exact relationship being enumerated.

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 clause "what stands in the way of archiving it" gives a clear use case (checking blockers before archiving a webhook endpoint), which is a real routing signal. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is not a full 5.

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