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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is deprecated and functions as a shim that dispatches to other tools, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it does not detail any side effects or mode of operation beyond dispatch.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED', and every sentence earns its place. It clearly and efficiently conveys the deprecation and alternative tools without unnecessary detail.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters and no schema coverage, this description is incomplete for actual invocation. While it serves well as a deprecation notice, it lacks operational details such as valid operations or parameter semantics, making it insufficient for any backward-compatibility use.

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 provides zero information about the six parameters (sql, name, patches, query_id, operation, max_results). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter meaning or usage.

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 labels the tool as deprecated and a backward-compatibility shim, and explicitly lists the alternative single-verb tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to more specific tools, but it doesn't directly state what the tool does beyond being a dispatcher.

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 'use workiva_wdata_list_queries / ...' and explains it is 'Kept as a backward-compatibility shim', providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming alternatives. This is an exemplary usage guideline.

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