Wave: Get Business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value on top by scoping what 'full detail' means (currency, address, type, settings), implicitly telling the agent which record domains this call will and will not surface. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler: verb, scope, and content enumeration all front-loaded in order of importance. 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the result contains, the schema documents the parameters, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The only minor omission is that the description doesn't mention the markdown/json output split, but the response_format schema field already covers that.

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 both parameters are already fully documented: business_id explains ID provenance and defaulting, response_format explains output modes and the default. The high coverage sets the baseline at 3; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one business'), and enumerates the returned content ('currency, address, type, and settings'). 'One business' clearly differentiates it from the sibling wave_list_businesses, so an agent can distinguish the single-record getter 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?

'Get full detail for one business' sets clear context: this is the single-entity retrieval path, contrasted with list-style siblings like wave_list_businesses. The business_id parameter description reinforces the workflow by naming wave_list_businesses as the ID source and wave_set_default_business as the fallback, though the description itself stops short of explicit when-to/when-not-to routing.

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