call_ukg_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that credentials are pre-configured. For a generic REST tool that supports DELETE and PATCH methods, it doesn't warn about mutation risks, response size limits, session expiration, or what happens when endpoints aren't tenant-enabled, leaving the agent blind to potential side effects.

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 exactly two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides the use-case context. No wasted words, no repetition of schema information, and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 generic REST endpoint tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover response formats, pagination behavior, rate limiting, or error scenarios.Resource conflict: This should be 2, not 3. The description only covers the 'explore' aspect and leaves critical behavioral details absent.

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 merely 20% (only 'path' is documented), yet the description provides zero parameter documentation. While the schema offers enums for method and accept, the 80% of undocumented parameters (body, query) get no clarification, and the low coverage requires the description to compensate — which it fails to do entirely.

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 tool calls a UKG Ready REST endpoint with configured credentials, using a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('UKG Ready REST endpoint'). The phrase 'explore tenant-enabled endpoints' distinguishes this generic explorer from the specific sibling tools like get_ukg_employee and list_ukg_timecards, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides useful context ('Use this to explore tenant-enabled endpoints') that implies this is a fallback/exploration tool when specific helpers don't exist. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer the specific sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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