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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deprecated status and that it dispatches to other tools, but provides no details on operation semantics, side effects, permissions, or result behavior. The mapping from the 'operation' parameter to the replacement tools is absent.

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 the deprecation warning, and names the exact replacement tools. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, redirecting to alternatives is the core requirement, and the output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, it lacks a mapping of operation values to the three replacement tools and gives no guidance for someone who must invoke the shim directly.

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% for three parameters. The description does not explain query_id, run_id, or operation, nor does it clarify how operation values map to the three replacement tools. The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to three named replacement tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its deprecation status, but it does not state a specific functional verb/resource (e.g., 'runs a query') beyond dispatching.

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_wdata_run_query / workiva_wdata_get_query_result / workiva_wdata_cancel_query_run' and explains it is kept for backward compatibility. This gives unambiguous guidance to prefer the named alternatives.

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