reference

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and description adds that write operations are only for sales taxes and returns JSON with error info. This aligns well, though it could further clarify potential side effects like archiving.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet-pointed operation lists, and a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, return format, and operation categories without missing essential details.

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 0%, yet the description thoroughly documents all parameters: operation with listed values, entity_id as base64 string, data dict with subfields (name, abbreviation, rate, etc.), page and page_size for list_estimates. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Lookup data, settings, sales taxes, and estimates in Wave' and lists specific read and write operations. While it effectively communicates the tool's scope, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like account, item, or report, which handle specific entities.

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 separates read and write operations and notes that write operations are limited to sales taxes. This provides clear usage context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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