Wave: Get Sales Tax

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds the behavioral detail that the response includes full rate history, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose any potential edge cases, error conditions, or authentication needs, but these are not critical for a read-only get operation. It adds some value without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the distinctive detail about rate history. It has no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 operation with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the key differentiator (rate history) and the required ID is obvious. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the response_format parameter. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but that is covered by the parameter. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters (business_id, sales_tax_id, response_format) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no incremental semantic value.

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 specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'one sales tax by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like wave_list_sales_taxes. It also adds a meaningful qualifier, 'including its full rate history', which is not in the title. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies you need a specific sales tax ID, and since there is a list tool, it's reasonable to assume you first list to get IDs, but this is not stated. There is no mention of when not to use it or any alternative routing. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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