Read your own Workday profile

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the schema: the returned text is third-party-authored and must be treated as untrusted data, never as instructions — a real prompt-injection caveat. It stops short of noting auth scope or freshness of the profile data.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: identity/scope first, use cases second, safety caveat third. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the response contains (the worker catalog: pay, benefits, time off, goals, feedback) and how to treat it. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this covers everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as reading 'your own' profile.

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 ('Read your own worker profile') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling workday_get_worker by noting it returns the same catalog scoped to the caller. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Provides concrete use cases (pay, benefits, time off, goals, feedback) and implicitly routes the 'for someone else' case to workday_get_worker via the 'for yourself' scoping phrase. No explicit when-not or prerequisite statement, but the context is clear.

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