Fetch a raw Workday endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces read-only. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: secrets redaction, raw JSON output, `.htmld` appending, and `/d/` SPA path normalization. This is substantive context, though not exhaustive about truncation or error behavior.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose and output type, usage guidance versus an alternative, path normalization behavior, and read-only confirmation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (RAW JSON with secrets redacted) and how path normalization works. The schema covers `maxBytes` and examples, and sibling guidance is explicit. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 is 3. The description adds meaningful path semantics beyond the schema by explaining bare URIs get `.htmld` appended and `/d/` SPA paths are normalized, which helps the agent construct valid `path` values. It does not add detail about `maxBytes`, but the schema already covers that fully.

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 a specific verb+resource ('GET any Workday data endpoint') and names its core value: returning RAW JSON with secrets redacted as an escape hatch for unmodeled pages. It also distinguishes itself from the typed sibling tools by framing itself as the fallback for exploring unfamiliar pages.

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 to prefer `workday_get_task` (structured) when it works, and to use this tool for exploring unfamiliar pages or seeing fields the parser drops. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative.

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