Get estimate deposit payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the useful detail that the response bundles the parent estimate and that the record may be a payment, refund, or void — modest value beyond annotations, with no info on pagination, errors, or auth.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-written rather than concise — the parenthetical '(or refund/void)' is the only elaboration, and the missing verb makes it read as a title rather than a definition.

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 two-parameter read tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the minimum an agent needs is a clear verb and the return shape; the return shape is partially conveyed ('with its estimate') but the verb is absent and no output schema exists to compensate. Adequate but thin.

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 both parameters are documented, including that businessId defaults to the value from wave_get_context, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format or prefix, but with a fully documented two-parameter schema the baseline of 3 is comfortably met.

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 phrase names the resource ('one estimate deposit payment') and hints at the return shape ('with its estimate'), but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the action (fetch) is only inferable from the title and sibling naming convention. It does at least distinguish itself from payment-mutating siblings like wave_record_estimate_deposit and wave_delete_estimate_payment.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to call this versus wave_list_payments or wave_get_estimate, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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