get_water_body_gerstner_wave_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by spelling out the return shape (wave_count plus per-wave fields), but says nothing about failure modes or required state of the water body.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose front-loaded and return shape following. Every line earns its place, especially since no output schema exists to document the return payload elsewhere.

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?

For a read-only one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and a clear scope. It falls short only on prerequisites and edge-case behavior, which for a pure read with full annotations is a minor gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Label of the AWaterBody actor'), the schema carries the semantics. The description restates the target resource but adds no format, naming, or validity detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precisely-scoped resource ('computed individual Gerstner waves of a water body') with the returned fields enumerated (wavelength, amplitude, steepness, direction). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic water-body tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling get_water_body_wave_info.

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 description never states when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the water body must use Gerstner waves) or what happens when no waves are computed. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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