Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description's valuable addition is disclosing the return payload shape (dual-currency balances, sequence number), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting error behavior for a missing id.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, and the most informative fields are front-loaded. The fragmentary noun-phrase construction is slightly less clear than a verb-led sentence would be.

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 two-parameter read-only resource fetcher with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the only thing the structured fields cannot supply is the shape of the returned account, and the description covers exactly that. 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that businessId defaults to what wave_get_context reports. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating the fields of the returned object (type, subtype, normal balance, balances, sequence number) rather than stating a verb+resource action. Combined with the name wave_get_account the intent is inferable, but the text itself never says 'retrieves a single account by ID' and makes no reference to the adjacent wave_list_accounts tool.

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 guidance on when to use this versus wave_list_accounts or wave_get_reference, no mention of what happens when the id is unknown, and no note about the businessId default. The agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction from tool names alone.

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