Read your org chart

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it resolves the Org Chart app from the user's app menu and describes how the profileUri can be consumed by workday_get_worker. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output details. Every sentence contributes: what it reads, what fields are returned, how the output connects to another tool, and that it is read-only. No 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and linking to workday_get_worker. Minor ambiguity remains about the exact scope of the 'reporting chain' (direct reports vs. full hierarchy), but it is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies the implicit subject of the operation by saying 'around you', which makes it clear the tool operates relative to the authenticated user without needing any explicit input.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the reporting chain around you' and enumerates the output fields (business title, location, report count, profileUri). It also differentiates from the sibling workday_get_worker by explaining that the returned profileUri is meant to be passed directly to that tool.

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 usage context is implied clearly: use this when you need the reporting chain around the current user, and 'Resolves the Org Chart app from your own app menu' adds context. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus siblings like workday_get_my_profile or workday_get_worker.

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