Get reference data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that lists are paginated, but that is also visible in the page/pageSize parameters, and it does not say what a country lookup returns in shape terms or whether an invalid code errors versus returns empty.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the enumeration of kinds, with the pagination note trailing. The mid-sentence parentheticals make it dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of 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 five parameters, one enum and no output schema, the description covers the full kind vocabulary, the dependency between kind and code, and pagination behavior. The main residual gap is return shape per kind, but for a read-only lookup tool backed by an 80%-documented schema this is close to complete.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an uplift by clarifying that kind=country returns one country together with its provinces/states and that kind=province resolves a single province by code. That adds interpretive value about what the code parameter selects, beyond the schema's terse 'Required for kind=country'.

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-resource pair (get reference data) and then enumerates exactly which datasets are available: currencies, countries, country-with-provinces, province, account types and account subtypes. It also distinguishes itself from the account-related siblings by framing subtypes as inputs to wave_create_account rather than as account records.

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?

It states the intended usage context plainly — reference data needed to fill other tools' inputs — and explicitly ties account_subtypes to wave_create_account, which tells the agent when to reach for this instead of a list/CRUD sibling. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'do not use for listing actual accounts; use wave_list_accounts').

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