workiva_get_range_link_destinations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of potential side effects, permissions, pagination, or behavior when no destinations exist. The description is too terse to be fully transparent.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the main action. The args list is structured clearly. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, so it loses a point.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adequately states the purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a simple read tool with complete args, it is minimally viable but not complete.

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 description lists each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'content_id: The content/spreadsheet UUID'). This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but the explanations are shallow and do not clarify how to obtain the IDs or their relationships.

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 states 'List destinations for a range link' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like workiva_list_range_links and workiva_get_range_link by focusing on destinations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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