Get Wave invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the list of returned artifacts (payment history, URLs), which is modest added context, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown ID or about access scope. Adequate against the lower bar set by 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it spends its length enumerating return fields that the existing output schema already documents, which is slightly redundant rather than wasteful enough to drop below 4.

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, the description need not explain return values, and with 100% schema coverage on the single required parameter, the call mechanics are clear. It falls short of 5 only because it omits error/not-found behavior and any access-scope caveats.

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 sole parameter is documented as an opaque string returned by Wave, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Get one invoice') and enumerates the returned contents (line items, taxes, payments, totals, amount due, PDF and customer-view URLs), which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling wave_list_invoices. An agent can tell this is single-invoice retrieval without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wave_list_invoices for browsing or wave_update_invoice for modification. The description only states what is returned, leaving tool selection to inference from the name alone.

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