Read a worker profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds context the annotations cannot: results are permission-scoped ('Shows only what your own Workday permissions already allow') and the returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, with an explicit prompt-injection directive to treat it as data, never instructions.

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?

Four dense sentences, each load-bearing: capability, return shape, input sourcing, follow-up routing, permission scope, and the untrusted-data warning. The catalog and the next-tool pointer are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the section/task catalog structure. Combined with the permission-scope note and the security warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle its output safely.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the accepted formats are already documented, but the description adds provenance and intent: the URI may come from workday_get_org_chart 'or any reference', and a bare id like `247$42` is acceptable. That is useful framing beyond the schema's type/format statement, though not syntax-level detail.

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+resource ('Read a worker's Workday profile') and goes further to describe the return shape: a catalog of eight named sections, each listing fetchable tasks. It is clearly distinguishable from workday_get_worker_task (which opens one task by name) and from workday_get_org_chart (which supplies the profileUri).

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?

Explicitly says how to obtain the input ('Pass a profileUri from workday_get_org_chart or any reference, or a bare worker id') and names the follow-up tool and its trigger ('Then use workday_get_worker_task to open one by name'). This is a full workflow hand-off, not just a context hint.

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