get_ukg_compensation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve' and offers no information about authentication requirements, access restrictions, pagination, response shape, or potential side effects. This is minimal and leaves notable ambiguity for a tool with no other metadata.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core behavior in an efficient way. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool appears simple, but the presence of path and query overrides plus lack of annotations and output schema creates some ambiguity about request behavior and return expectations. The description is adequate for basic selection and invocation, but it could benefit from clarifying the endpoint semantics or relationship to call_ukg_endpoint.

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 adds only a high-level distinction between employee-specific and collection-level retrieval, mostly reinforcing what the employeeId parameter already states rather than providing additional semantics.

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 ('Retrieve') and identifies a clear resource ('compensation data'), further clarifying whether the target is an individual employee or the tenant collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ukg_employee or get_ukg_timecards.

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 implies this tool is for compensation data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over generic alternatives like call_ukg_endpoint. It gives clear context by contrasting employee-level vs collection-level retrieval, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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