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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes only that the example is singular ("one realistic illustrative") and includes a price guard, which is output content rather than behavior beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and wastes no words. The comma-separated output list is dense but every item adds information; slightly listy rather than optimally structured.

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 no explanation, and the description's enumeration of payload contents is a bonus. What remains missing — the semantics of capability_id and routing against run_wave_example — is a parameter/usage concern already scored above, not a completeness gap for a read-only lookup.

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?

The single required parameter capability_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it fails to mention capability_id at all. An agent cannot tell from the description that the example is scoped to a specific capability, or what values are valid.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Return") and enumerates the exact payload contents: request/result shape, artifact list, duration, price guard. An agent can tell what comes back, but the description never differentiates this from closely related siblings like run_wave_example or get_wave_capability, leaving the distinction to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus run_wave_example (which presumably returns actual results) or get_wave_capability. The description reads as a pure output inventory with no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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