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 that the tool is deprecated and 'dispatches to the single-verb tools above', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens on invocation (which operation runs, side effects, error handling, or return 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 description is concise and front-loaded with '# DEPRECATED', lists the replacement tools, and adds a single explanatory sentence. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 is nearly complete: it tells the agent not to use this tool and points to the exact alternatives. While the shim's own operational details are absent, the openai output schema and the explicit redirect mitigate the gap. It lacks parameter semantics, but as a deprecation notice it fulfills its main contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters (name, edits, index, operation, section_id, document_id, target_document_id). The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean, which operations are available, or how they map to the underlying tools.

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 states the tool is DEPRECATED and identifies it as a backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to specific single-verb tools (workiva_list_document_sections, workiva_get_document_section, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from those sibling tools and conveys a specific purpose.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'use workiva_list_document_sections / workiva_get_document_section / workiva_create_document_section / ...' instead, and explains the shim is kept only for backward compatibility. This gives definitive guidance on when not to use this tool and which alternatives to prefer.

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