Read your own Workday profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds 'Read-only' reinforcing this. The description also adds useful context about the data content (pay, benefits, time off, goals, feedback) and ties it to workday_get_worker's return, providing value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the tool's scope and typical use cases without fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only self-profile tool, the description is complete. It explains what data is available, references a sibling tool for context, and declares read-only behavior. No output schema is provided, so the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond referencing workday_get_worker's catalog.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description correctly implies no input is needed by focusing on 'your own' profile, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. There is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'your own worker profile', distinguishing it from the sibling tool workday_get_worker by emphasizing 'for yourself'. It also lists example data fields (pay, benefits, time off, goals, feedback), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need your own profile, and contrasts with workday_get_worker by noting 'the same catalog workday_get_worker returns, for yourself'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative sibling tools beyond this implicit contrast.

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