Get Wave connection context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it succeeds with no credentials at all and then acts as a setup guide, and it reports whether writes are enabled and what the public API cannot do. That is capability and failure-mode disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the highest-value instruction ('Start here') front-loaded, followed by the return inventory and the no-credentials fallback. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by enumerating each field group. It also covers the authenticating and unauthenticated cases, which is the full decision surface for a zero-argument bootstrap tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and it correctly devotes its space to return contents instead.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pattern (returns connection context) and enumerates the exact contents: signed-in user, credential configuration, reachable businesses, default business, write enablement, and API limitations. The opening 'Start here' positions it clearly against the CRUD siblings like wave_get_business and wave_list_businesses.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent to call this before other wave_* tools. It also states the unauthenticated path ('works without credentials and then explains how to set them up'). It does not explicitly say when to call wave_list_businesses or wave_get_business instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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