Read your own Workday profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds value by listing the types of data available and equating the response with `workday_get_worker`'s catalog, giving the agent behavioral expectations beyond the structured 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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and scope, then add the concrete use cases. The only minor redundancy is restating 'Read-only' when the annotation already says it, but this is a low-cost safety signal.

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, self-scoped read tool with strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description fully explains what the tool does and why an agent would call it. Pointing to `workday_get_worker`'s catalog also gives the agent a reference for expected return shape.

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 description has no parameter burden to carry. The description still helps by indicating the content of the returned profile, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read your own worker profile.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `workday_get_worker` by noting it returns the same catalog for yourself. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to read your own profile and find pay, benefits, time off, goals, and feedback. It references `workday_get_worker` as returning the same catalog, implicitly signaling the difference, but it never explicitly states when to prefer one over the other.

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