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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add one piece of behavioral context, 'principal-scoped,' implying access is limited to the calling principal, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it stops there.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. The compressed jargon ('principal-scoped bounded') trades a little clarity for brevity, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 explained, and the rich annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any sense of how this differs from get_wave_job_result or get_wave_receipt and any parameter context, which is the minimum an agent needs for a 4-parameter required-argument call.

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% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. Instead it says nothing about job_id, artifact_id, product, or schema_version, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from const values and regex patterns alone.

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 gives a clear verb ('Retrieve') and a resource ('Wave result artifact'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the qualifiers 'principal-scoped' and 'bounded' are opaque, and it never distinguishes an 'artifact' from the sibling tools get_wave_job_result or get_wave_receipt, leaving the agent unable to tell which of these job-scoped reads it should call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like get_wave_job_result, get_wave_job_status, and get_wave_receipt in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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