Fetch a raw Workday endpoint

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: discloses that secrets are redacted, that bare URIs get '.htmld' appended and '/d/' SPA paths are normalized, and carries a prompt-injection warning that the returned text is third-party and untrusted. That last point is critical behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then routing guidance, then behavioral caveats. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (raw JSON, redacted, truncatable via maxBytes), how input paths are normalized, and the trust posture of the response. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about how `path` is interpreted (bare URIs get '.htmld' appended, '/d/' paths normalized) that the schema example does not convey. `maxBytes` is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('GET any Workday data endpoint', 'return the RAW JSON with secrets redacted') and frames itself as the 'escape hatch for pages the typed tools do not model yet'. This cleanly separates it from typed siblings like workday_get_task without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Prefer workday_get_task (structured) when it works; reach for this to explore an unfamiliar page or to see fields the parser drops.' Names the alternative, the preferred condition, and the two fallback conditions.

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