Get Wave customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's contribution is the payload summary (address, default currency, outstanding/overdue amounts), which does hint that this is a read with computed financials rather than a raw record fetch. It adds little beyond annotations plus the output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the identifying parameter lead, and the payload detail trails. Nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not spell out return values or safety behavior, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is behavior on a missing/invalid customer id, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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% and the single parameter is described as 'an opaque string exactly as returned by Wave'. The description's 'by id' only restates that; it adds no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get one customer by id') that distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling wave_list_customers by using 'one'. It also names the salient payload fields (address, currency, outstanding/overdue), so an agent knows the shape of what it gets without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name the list sibling as an alternative, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' — the tool applies when a customer ID is already known — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over wave_list_customers or the wave_update_customer/get_invoice siblings, and no mention of what happens for an unknown ID. Adequate but inferential.

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