search_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned fields and the multi-match disambiguation behavior, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about match semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity), empty-result behavior, or read-only nature beyond the word 'search'.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the return behavior appended. Every sentence contributes, though the return-field listing is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

The presence of an output schema lowers the bar for explaining return values, and the description covers the disambiguation case. However, for a search tool it omits essential call-correctness details like matching semantics and empty-result handling, leaving a noticeable gap.

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?

Only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By name' restates the parameter name without clarifying expected format (full name, partial, surname-only) or matching behavior, adding little beyond what the schema's field title conveys.

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 and resource ('Search the Workday worker population by name') and ties it to a downstream goal ('find a template worker'), which distinguishes it from synthesize_test_hire and generate_synthetic_identity. It does not explicitly contrast with get_worker_template, which is the nearest sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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 phrase 'find a template worker' implies this is a lookup step preceding get_worker_template, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or explicit alternative is named. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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