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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool is deprecated and acts as a shim that dispatches to other tools. This is a transparent behavioral description, though it does not detail side effects or parameter handling, which would be inherited from the underlying tools.

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 exceptionally concise, with the deprecation warning front-loaded in the first line and the backward-compatibility purpose stated in the second. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given that the tool is deprecated and a shim, the description's main job is to redirect users to the correct alternatives, which it does perfectly. However, for an agent that still needs to invoke this shim for backward compatibility, the missing parameter semantics and lack of detail about dispatch behavior make it incomplete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but parameter guidance is still missing.

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 no explanation of the three parameters (group_id, operation, workspace_id). Even the fact that 'operation' likely selects which sub-tool to dispatch to is never mentioned. The agent is left with zero guidance on valid values or how parameters map to behavior.

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 single-verb alternatives. It uses a specific verb ('dispatches') and resource (workspace operations), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact tools to use instead.

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_workspaces, workiva_get_workspace, workiva_list_workspace_groups, and workiva_list_workspace_memberships instead, and notes that this tool is only kept for backward compatibility. This provides clear when-to-use and 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.