Thank you for commenting, this is so interesting! I am not aware of any such work, but this is a great direction to do a little research in, there might actually be a glossary or at least examples of people describing waves in a way that doesn’t use technical terms.
Another thing I am wondering about is how much of the “fluff” of the picture needs to be described. The color of the sky is only relevant when talking about its effect on the water, i.e. it being reflected or something. Boundaries don’t necessarily affect the wave field, for example the opposite shore of a wide bay on the other side might be irrelevant for the waves we are observing where we are. But still the shore might be an important part of the image from an artistic point of view. Do I still talk about it but point out that it’s irrelevant to the waves I am discussing? Clearly there is still a lot of things I need to think about in more detail!

Descriptive language in science is vital but problematic. I used to teach botany – there is a huge vocabulary of descriptive terms for plants, describing, for example, leaf shape, venation, texture, serration etc. There are latinised names for colours that include multiple terms for shades of the colour black. Elsewhere scientists have developed descriptive formulas, for example for fin arrangement in fish, or the plates of the cell wall of dinoflagellates. No one outside the field understands these terms.

Describing waves, or a wave field, without using mathematical terms or overly technical language is a big but exciting challenge. I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a glossary on the subject?