Read a worker profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context about the catalog structure and permission constraints ('Shows only what your own Workday permissions already allow'). It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral insight.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value—covering output, input format, and next steps without any fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (catalog of sections and tasks), input requirements, and follow-up tool usage. It also notes permission limits, making it complete for the tool's scope.

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% and the schema description is detailed, but the description enriches parameter understanding with concrete examples (bare id '247$42') and source references (profileUri from workday_get_org_chart), which goes beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads a worker's profile and returns a catalog of all readable sections and tasks. It distinguishes from sibling workday_get_worker_task by explaining it returns a catalog, not individual tasks, and mentions it is read-only.

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 provides explicit input guidance (profileUri from get_org_chart or bare worker id) and indicates the next step ('Then use workday_get_worker_task to open one by name'). It also notes permission limitations, giving a clear usage flow without needing alternatives.

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