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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this performs real execution through a typed adapter (not a mock or dry run) yet is constrained to a fixed catalog-owned example with no arbitrary input, which is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs.

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 the action verb first and no padding. It is denser and more jargon-laden than ideal ('real typed WaveEngine adapter'), but every clause carries meaning and nothing is wasted.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. With one simple required parameter and the bounded-execution behavior explained, the definition is nearly complete; the only real gap is what capability_id actually denotes.

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%, so the schema only supplies the name, type and length bounds of the single capability_id parameter. The description hints the value is catalog-owned but never explains that capability_id selects a catalog capability or gives format/valid-value guidance, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('catalog-owned bounded example') and clarifies the execution route ('through the real typed WaveEngine adapter'). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'bounded' and 'without accepting arbitrary input', but never explicitly names get_wave_example or run_wave_job as alternatives, so the contrast remains inferential.

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 'without accepting arbitrary input' implies a contrast with tools that do (e.g. run_wave_job), and 'bounded example' implies use only for fixed catalog examples. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given, leaving usage to inference.

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