Get Wave business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context that annotations cannot express: this tool reads a single pinned business and every other wave_* tool acts on that same business, which shapes how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and its returned fields before the usage and scope notes. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes the salient fields. Combined with the explicit scope constraint and pre-flight usage hint, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to misinterpret; no parameter documentation is required. Baseline for a 0-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the Wave business this server is pinned to') and enumerates exactly what it returns: name, default currency, timezone, and email-sending status. It also differentiates itself from every sibling by declaring that all wave_* tools operate on this one business.

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?

'Use it to check the connection before other tools' gives an explicit when-to-use and effectively positions it as the entry point for the wave_* family. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, but for a zero-param introspection tool the routing intent is unambiguous.

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