get_ukg_employee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation and 'one ... by ID' sets expectations of a single-record lookup, but it does not describe error behavior, authorization requirements, response shape, or any quirks of the underlying UKG Ready API. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich in transparency.

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 one short sentence, front-loads the verb and resource, and contains no redundant or filler words.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with fully described parameters, the description plus schema is sufficient to select and invoke the tool. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema or return-value description, but the tool name and description make the returned employee object reasonably predictable.

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% and each parameter has a meaningful description (employeeId, path override placeholder, query object). The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema beyond reiterating that the lookup is by ID, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource—'Get one UKG Ready employee by ID'—and clearly scopes the operation to a single record keyed by employee ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ukg_employees and 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 phrase 'by ID' and 'one' imply the appropriate use case: fetch a single known employee rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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