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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — that this is a backward-compatibility shim dispatching to single-verb tools — but it omits operational details such as side effects, how the operation is selected, or error 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 a compact two-sentence notice with the deprecation warning front-loaded in capital letters. Every word earns its place; the markdown header formatting is slightly unconventional but does not harm clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but all five parameters remain undocumented and the mapping of `operation` values to the four target tools is absent. The description is sufficient to steer agents away, but insufficient if the shim must actually be invoked.

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% across five parameters, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. The word 'dispatches' implies the `operation` parameter selects among target verbs, but content_id, table_id, data, and range_link_id are never explained.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to four named alternatives (workiva_list_range_links, workiva_get_range_link, workiva_edit_range_link, workiva_get_range_link_destinations), which gives some purpose clarity. However, it never states what range-link operations the tool actually performs or what a range link is, so the underlying function remains vague.

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 marks the tool as DEPRECATED and names four specific replacement tools to use instead. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and concrete alternatives, making the redirection unambiguous.

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