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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the deprecation, backward-compatibility role, and dispatch behavior. It tells the agent this tool is a shim and routes to specific tools, which is sufficient behavioral transparency for a deprecated tool.

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 sentences, immediately front-loaded with DEPRECATED, and goes straight to the point. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure (deprecation notice followed by alternatives) is ideal for this tool.

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 complete: it tells the agent to not use this tool and points to the specific replacement tools. Given the output schema exists and the replacement tools are well-defined, the agent has everything needed to make the correct choice.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (org_id, user_id, operation). Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent must guess how these parameters map to the dispatched operations. This is a significant gap, though mitigated by the deprecation warning.

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 this is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools, and it lists the exact replacement tools. It does not describe a specific operational behavior, but that is intentional for a shim, and it effectively distinguishes itself from the siblings.

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 the listed tools instead (workiva_list_organizations, workiva_get_organization, etc.), giving clear alternatives and when-not-to-use guidance. This is exactly what usage guidelines should provide.

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