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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools and is deprecated, which is important contextual information. However, it does not reveal whether the underlying operations are read-only or mutating, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The dispatch behavior is explained, but other safety-relevant traits are omitted.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the deprecation warning in caps. It lists the replacement tools and clearly explains the shim role in two sentences with no wasted verbiage. The structure effectively communicates both the warning and the purpose.

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 tool, the most critical context—which tools to use instead—is fully provided. However, the tool still has 5 parameters and no user guidance for invoking the shim itself. The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics and behavioral details are incomplete. Given the deprecation notice, this is acceptable for selection but insufficient for invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. It provides no explanation of what 'filter', 'run_id', 'chain_id', 'operation', or 'max_results' mean or how they relate to the dispatch behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no value to the schema, leaving the agent to guess.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to workiva_list_chains, workiva_get_chain, workiva_list_chain_runs, and workiva_list_chain_run_nodes. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives and conveys its purpose as a legacy dispatcher. However, it does not state the specific domain operations (e.g., 'list chains') directly, relying on the named replacement tools to imply functionality.

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 description provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_list_chains / workiva_get_chain / ...' and explains that the tool is kept only for backward compatibility. This is a clear directive to prefer the alternative tools, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this shim.

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