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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a shim and dispatches to other tools, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe side effects, read-only vs. destructive nature, or how dispatch is determined (e.g., via operation parameter).

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, front-loaded with the deprecation warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, yet the description gives no information about how to use it (e.g., which operation maps to which behavior). It's sufficient as a deprecation notice, but if invoked directly, the agent lacks critical context about parameter semantics and return behavior.

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 explain any of the 6 parameters (operation, name, index, sheet_id, target_spreadsheet_id, spreadsheet_id). The description only directs to alternatives, leaving the agent with no meaningful parameter semantics beyond raw property names.

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's a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools (list, get, create, delete, copy). While it doesn't explicitly outline its own capabilities, it names the alternatives, which conveys its purpose as a multiplexer for sheet operations. This distinguishes it from 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 says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_list_sheets / workiva_get_sheet / workiva_create_sheet / workiva_delete_sheet / workiva_copy_sheet.' This is direct when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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