Fetch a raw Workday endpoint

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses secrets redaction, URL normalization (bare URIs get .htmld appended, /d/ SPA paths normalized), and read-only GET constraint. These are critical behavioral traits not implied by annotations alone.

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, tightly packed with purpose, usage guidance, behavior, and constraints. Every phrase is necessary, no redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 for a fetch tool: it states what it does, when to use it, how it transforms paths, and that it's read-only. With no output schema, the return type (RAW JSON) is specified. No other behavioral aspects are 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?

The schema already documents both parameters (path and maxBytes) with descriptions/purpose. The description adds path normalization behavior ('Bare URIs get .htmld appended and /d/ SPA paths are normalized') which is not in the schema, providing extra semantic value. However, maxBytes behavior is not elaborated beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool fetches a raw Workday endpoint and returns RAW JSON with secrets redacted. It explicitly identifies itself as an escape hatch for endpoints not modeled by other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like workday_get_task (which is structured).

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 explicitly recommends preferring workday_get_task when it works, and explains when to use this tool: 'to explore an unfamiliar page or to see fields the parser drops.' This gives clear when/when-not guidance for alternative selection.

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