search_workday_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains that it resolves the tenant's own location facet regardless of naming and that title filtering is done client-side because Workday's searchText silently drops real matches. It omits rate limits, pagination, and return shape, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes scope and inputs, the second discloses the two non-obvious implementation quirks. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical gotchas (tenant resolution, facet naming, unreliable server-side title search). It does not describe the result structure or how empty results are signaled, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot: location is matched against the tenant's dynamically-named facet (with real values surfaced on no-match), and title is filtered client-side rather than via Workday's searchText.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search any Workday board (*.myworkdayjobs.com) by job title and location') and enumerates concrete tenants. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_indeed, search_google_jobs, or search_linkedin_jobs, which target other job sources.

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?

It makes the usage condition explicit: any Workday tenant, either by known employer name or by board URL, with worked examples. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling board search or what to do if the employer is not on Workday, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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