Wave: Get Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally, and the description does not contradict any of them. The description adds a small behavioral clue that the balance is current rather than cached, and the schema notes response_format behavior (markdown vs json). It does not disclose not-found or error behavior, but with four rich annotations the bar is lower.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before appending the balance detail. There is no filler, no repetition of the title, and every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool, 100% schema coverage, four rich annotations, and the description's return hint ('including its current balance') form a nearly complete picture. The main omissions are edge-case behavior (e.g., account-not-found handling) and explicit return-structure detail, but with no output schema and a read-only op these are minor. Nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is missing.

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 each parameter is well documented: account_id's purpose, business_id's base64 format and defaulting rules, and response_format's enum with a default of markdown. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. An agent has everything needed to populate the parameters correctly from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one account by ID') plus a distinctive return detail ('including its current balance'). This clearly separates it from sibling wave_list_accounts (which retrieves multiple accounts) and other getters such as wave_get_business or wave_get_vendor. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 singular scope ('one account by ID') implies this tool is for when a single account ID is already known, but the description never names wave_list_accounts as the alternative for fetching all accounts or states when not to use it. The business_id parameter description does add operational guidance (business defaulting, pass on every call), but that is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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