Open a Workday app by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it follows links to child cards (multi-step navigation) and performs case-insensitive matching against the app menu. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that leads with the core action, lists concrete examples, explains the follow-through behavior, and ends with key matching details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff 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 tool with 3 parameters, high schema coverage, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is adequate. It explains the purpose, the navigation behavior, and matching semantics. It does not describe output format, but no output schema exists, and the description's mention of 'read it' implies the content is returned. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining case-insensitive app matching and the concept of 'child cards' that depth controls, which goes slightly beyond the schema's param descriptions. It doesn't fully compensate for every nuance but adds meaningful context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') with a clear resource ('Workday apps by name') and explicitly lists example app names, then explains the follow-through to child cards. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workday_get_apps (list) and workday_fetch (generic fetch) by focusing on opening a specific app by name and traversing its content.

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 gives strong context for when to use this tool: 'Most Workday app hubs return a near-empty shell on their own; this follows the links for you.' This implies when the tool is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for raw API access). It offers clear situational guidance without formal exclusions.

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