get_water_body_wave_info

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive local operation. On top of that, the description supplies the exact return shape, which is valuable because there is no output schema. It does not disclose pagination or error behavior, but for a simple getter that is a minor gap.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return fields listed compactly afterward. Nothing is repeated or padded, and the return list earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the resource, what is inspected, and the exact fields returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter water_body_label is fully documented in the schema as the label of an AWaterBody actor. The description adds no further meaning beyond that, so the schema is carrying the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (water body's wave state), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: support, presence, max height, waves class, and count. It is clear what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby water siblings such as get_water_body_info or get_water_body_gerstner_wave_detail.

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 states what the tool reads but gives no guidance on when to use it rather than get_water_body_info or get_water_body_gerstner_wave_detail. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools named, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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