Open one task on a worker profile

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: case-insensitive matching, the error listing available tasks, and the 'Read-only' confirmation. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, examples inline, and no wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 two simple parameters, a read-only hint, and full schema coverage, the description fully explains behavior, matching rules, and error output. No output schema is needed for this kind of open action, and the description covers the important runtime details.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds extra value by giving expanded task examples and specifying case-insensitive matching, which helps an agent construct valid inputs beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Open a single named item from a worker's profile') with concrete examples like 'Compensation' and 'Job Details'. It differentiates from siblings like workday_get_task by scoping to a worker's profile task catalog.

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?

It provides clear context: use for opening a named task from a worker's profile, with matching semantics and error behavior. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the worker-profile scoping is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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