Wave: Get Invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (line items, taxes, discounts, payments), Beyond annotations, it does not disclose rate limits or authorization needs, but those are common for read tools.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resources. Every word is meaningful, and there is no wasted text.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and return content adequately. With no output schema, the description clarifies what the returned invoice includes. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple getter with rich annotations, it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema provides parameter names and types. The description adds context: for `response_format`, it clarifies 'compact human-readable summary' vs 'complete record'; for `business_id`, it explains defaulting behavior. This goes beyond the 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 'Get one invoice in full: line items, taxes, discounts, and payments.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'invoice', and the scope 'in full' with included details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wave_list_invoices which likely return a list without full details.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use when full invoice details are needed, but there is no mention of when not to use or alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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