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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is deprecated and dispatches to other tools, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that using it can perform destructive operations (e.g., create/update/delete), nor does it explain how the 'operation' parameter drives that behavior. Partial transparency.

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 short sentences with the key warning 'DEPRECATED' front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure immediately communicates the essential action (do not use this; use the alternatives).

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 description is complete as a deprecation notice, but it offers no operational guidance if the shim must be invoked. With 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema explanation, an agent would be lost if forced to use this tool. It effectively tells the agent to avoid it, but does not make the tool itself usable.

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 schema includes 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description itself mentions no parameters, defaults, or how the 'operation' parameter selects a target tool. The description adds zero value for understanding the parameter space.

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 identifies this as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific replacement tools (workiva_list_tasks, workiva_get_task, workiva_create_task, etc.), making its purpose and scope immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use workiva_list_tasks / workiva_get_task / workiva_create_task / workiva_update_task / workiva_delete_task instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. This is the strongest possible usage guideline for a deprecated tool.

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