Run a Workday GraphQL query

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that mutation/subscription and SDL documents are refused, that secret/government-PII fields are redacted by name and aliasing them is blocked, that the queries are undocumented so iteration is expected, and that returned text is untrusted third-party data (prompt-injection warning). These are exactly the operational constraints the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then use case, then constraints, and every sentence carries information an agent needs (refusals, redaction, untrusted output). It is dense rather than padded, though the em-dash-heavy prose makes it longer than strictly necessary.

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 low-level, undocumented-API escape hatch with no output schema, the description covers the full picture: what is reachable, what is refused, what comes back redacted, and how to treat the response. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that only `query` documents are accepted and that mutations are refused, but adds no syntax or format guidance for `maxBytes`, `variables`, or `operationName` beyond what the schema already states.

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-only GraphQL query against Workday's PEX surface at `/wday/pex/graphql`) and immediately positions it as the escape hatch that sibling tools like workday_fetch cannot cover. An agent can distinguish it from the narrow, purpose-built siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: this is the only route to surfaces with no GET-able `.htmld` endpoint, specifically Inbox/My Tasks and global search — which implicitly routes the agent elsewhere when such an endpoint does exist. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. workday_fetch) as the alternative, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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