Wave: List Customers

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), lowering the bar. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait beyond annotations: name_contains is applied locally after fetching, so results can be incomplete without fetch_all=true. This is the kind of non-obvious runtime behavior that materially affects correctness.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the single most important usage caveat. Every clause 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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the salient return content (balances), flags the pagination/filtering trap, and leaves parameter documentation to a fully-covered schema. A small gap is the absence of any hint about response shape beyond balances, but the annotations and rich schema compensate.

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 baseline of 3 applies — parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description adds modest extra value by clarifying the interaction between name_contains and fetch_all and by noting Wave only supports exact email natively, but it doesn't carry the semantic 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 begins with a specific verb and resource — 'List customers' — and adds concrete inclusion detail ('outstanding and overdue balance'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wave_get_customer (singular retrieval) and wave_list_vendors (different resource).

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?

Provides clear actionable context: it explains that Wave only filters natively by exact email, while name_contains is a post-fetch local filter, then gives explicit guidance to combine name_contains with fetch_all=true for large lists. It lacks an explicit 'use wave_get_customer instead when...' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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