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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals it is a shim that dispatches to other tools, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, return behavior, or what happens when called. This is minimal disclosure.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It delivers the essential deprecation message and alternative tools efficiently.

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 adequate: it tells the agent to avoid it and names replacements. However, it does not explain what the tool does or what the parameters/outputs mean, so it is only minimally complete for an agent that might still need to invoke it.

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 does not mention any parameters. The meaning of 'data', 'revision', 'operation', and 'rich_text_id' is left entirely to the schema, which also lacks descriptions. The description makes no attempt to compensate.

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 it is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim and names the specific replacement tools. This distinguishes it from siblings and gives a specific purpose, though it does not describe the actual rich-text functionality itself.

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 says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_read_rich_text_paragraphs / workiva_batch_edit_rich_text / workiva_duplicate_rich_text', providing clear instructions on when not to use this tool and pointing to the exact alternatives.

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