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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: role inheritance semantics ('members of the roles below them see it too'), the default admin-only behavior with record-sharing exceptions, the admin-only auth requirement, and an untrusted-content injection warning. It stops short of covering response size, ordering, or error behavior.

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?

The return content is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by edge-case semantics and the permission gate, then a compact security note. Three sentences, no filler, every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly fills in what is returned (roles and people) plus default-visibility behavior and the auth requirement. Complete for a low-complexity read tool; only minor gaps like list size or ordering remain 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both pipelineId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema (including the cross-workspace requirement). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond implying a single pipeline, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns who may see one pipeline') and unpacks what that means — role assignments, user assignments, inheritance, and default visibility. It clearly separates this read tool from the write-side set_pipeline_access in spirit, but never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the verb.

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 prerequisite 'Workspace admins only' is a useful usage gate, and the description implies this is the read-side of access inspection. However it never states when to use this versus get_member_access, get_permission_catalogue, or get_pipeline_summary, nor that set_pipeline_access is the mutation alternative — usage is implied rather than directed.

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