Wave: Get Vendor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context beyond that by revealing that the response includes address and shipping details, which is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies a request. No rate limits, auth, or error behavior are mentioned, but for a simple single-record get that is not a major gap.

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 states the verb, resource, and the key output detail without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate 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?

Given the rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the main missing piece is a complete return specification since there is no output schema. The description partially compensates by noting address and shipping details, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly mentioned not-found behavior or the full record shape, but it is not necessary for the basic call.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, including the business_id default behavior and the response_format enum. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one vendor by ID), and adds a distinctive return detail (including address and shipping details). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like wave_list_vendors and from other get-by-ID tools such as wave_get_customer or wave_get_account.

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 phrase 'one vendor by ID' implies this is for fetching a single known vendor, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of wave_list_vendors for finding IDs, and no statement about when a different tool should be chosen. Usage is inferred from the name and description rather than spelled out.

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