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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description still contributes useful behavior by labeling the receipt 'durable' and tied to a 'settled' reservation, signalling finality, but says nothing about availability lag, retention, or error behavior.

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 with no wasted words, which is appropriate for a narrowly scoped getter. It is close to optimally tight, though the terseness leaves the semantic gaps noted in other dimensions unaddressed.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. What remains under-specified is the unexplained 'Account Core' jargon and the absence of any precondition or failure description for a two-required-parameter 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% for two required parameters, so the description is the only place meaning could be added, and it does not mention reservation_id or schema_version at all. The only implicit signal is that a single reservation is addressed, which does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a concrete resource ('durable Account Core receipt') scoped to 'one settled WaveEngine reservation'. That is clearly distinguishable from generic job-result siblings, though it never names the neighboring tool (e.g. get_wave_job_result) it should be preferred over, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'one settled WaveEngine reservation' implies a precondition (the reservation must have settled) and a one-at-a-time cardinality. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_wave_job_status, get_wave_job_result, or get_wave_job_artifact, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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