Read your org chart

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but harmless. It adds value by disclosing the return shape (per-person business title, location, report count, profileUri), the scope ('around you'), and the integration path to workday_get_worker. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentences communicate purpose, output fields, scope, integration, and access context without filler. The most important verb ('Read') and resource ('reporting chain') are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the personal scope ('around you'), the app-resolution behavior, and a concrete downstream use of profileUri. Sibling tools are differentiated well, and no critical usage context 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than inputs, using the extra room to explain what the returned data will include and how profileUri can be consumed.

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 opens with a specific action and scope: 'Read the reporting chain around you.' It then details the output elements (business title, location, report count, profileUri) and cross-references workday_get_worker, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like workday_get_worker or workday_get_my_profile.

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 makes the use case clear—viewing one's own reporting chain and pulling the org chart app from the app menu. It also indicates a natural follow-up by noting the profileUri can be passed to workday_get_worker. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool.

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