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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecation status and that it forwards to another tool, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, errors, or specific behaviors beyond dispatching, leaving some uncertainty for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentences, with 'DEPRECATED' and the replacement tool name front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent scanning the description.

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 deprecated shim, the description gives the essential context: don't use this, use workiva_run_chain. An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that parameters match the target tool, but it is otherwise adequate for its purpose.

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 input schema lists three parameters but the description provides 0% coverage of them. It merely says it 'dispatches' to another tool, which implies the parameters are identical to workiva_run_chain, but this is not explicitly stated. The agent must infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to workiva_run_chain. It explicitly names the replacement tool, distinguishing it from siblings and clarifying its limited role.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use workiva_run_chain instead, and explains this tool is kept only for backward compatibility. This is unambiguous when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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