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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add that only 'approved public' descriptors are returned, hinting at a visibility filter, but discloses nothing about auth needs, error behavior, or what 'approved' means. Modest added value over the 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?

One tightly scoped sentence with no filler and the key qualifier ('full approved public') front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it scores well on efficiency without reaching the top band.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a simple lookup tool the description still omits how to obtain the required id and what 'approved public' excludes, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 0% and the single required capability_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say what a capability_id looks like or where to obtain one (e.g., from list_wave_capabilities), so the agent is left to guess the identifier source and format.

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 verb (Return) and a resource (Wave capability descriptor), and 'one' plus 'full' implies it fetches a single complete record versus the list/search siblings. However, 'capability descriptor' is jargon and the description never pins down what such a descriptor contains or how it differs from get_wave_example, get_wave_receipt, etc.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives. The only implicit signal is 'one', leaving the agent to infer that list_wave_capabilities/search_wave_capabilities are for browsing.

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