wave_get_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' which is vague and does not specify read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the invoice does not exist. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., line items, customer details, payment status). Without that, the agent cannot gauge whether this tool meets its needs. The tool is not complete enough for reliable autonomous selection.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names and descriptions. It does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., is businessId needed if user has one business?), nor does it clarify formats or constraints. No extra semantic enrichment.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wave_list_invoices' which retrieves multiple invoices, and 'wave_approve_invoice' which modifies state. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with other 'get' tools like 'wave_get_invoice_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the invoice ID from a list operation), no exclusions, and no context about typical workflows. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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