Run a Workday GraphQL query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds that mutation/subscription documents are refused, that the server is read-only, and that the agent should 'expect to iterate' due to unpublished operations. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying exact refusal boundaries and the iterative nature.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then provides usage context and constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 GraphQL tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral expectations: read-only, endpoint, refusal of mutations/subscriptions, and the need to iterate. It does not detail response format or error handling, but given the standard nature of GraphQL responses and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to act.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'you supply the document; expect to iterate' which reinforces the query parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter-specific details are given.

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 the tool runs a read-only GraphQL query against a specific endpoint ('/wday/pex/graphql'), names the resource precisely, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's the only route to surfaces like Inbox and global search that lack GET-able .htmld endpoints.

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 states when to use this tool: 'This is the only route to surfaces that have no GET-able .htmld endpoint — notably the Inbox / "My Tasks" and global search.' It also conveys that Workday does not publish these operations, implying alternative tools should be used whenever a standard endpoint exists.

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