Wave: Get Estimate

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 covered. The description adds that the tool returns line items, deposits, and acceptance history, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the default response format behavior (markdown vs json) or the effect of include_history/include_attachments/include_deposit_payments flags beyond what the schema already states.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the three key included components. No wasted words, and the most important scoping information ('one estimate') comes first.

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 read-only single-record retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by noting that the response format defaults to markdown and that json returns the complete record, but the schema already covers those details. The main gap is not explicitly routing the agent to wave_list_estimates to obtain an estimate_id.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of what the tool returns but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like business_id, include_history, or response_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 'Get one estimate in full: line items, deposits, and acceptance history' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('one estimate'), and enumerates the key included components. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wave_list_estimates (list vs. single) and wave_get_estimate_payment (payment vs. estimate).

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 implies a single-record retrieval use case, and the sibling list tool (wave_list_estimates) provides an implicit alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus wave_get_estimate_payment or wave_list_estimates, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing an estimate_id from a list call.

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