get_user_by_short_uuid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP surface ([READ] GET /api/users/by-short-uuid/:shortUuid), which confirms the read semantics but adds nothing about not-found behavior or return payload.

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 short lines with the essential information front-loaded and zero padding. The bracketed HTTP verb is slightly redundant with the annotations but costs little.

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 simple single-parameter read with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it omits how the short UUID is obtained and what happens on a miss. No output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required.

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 0% for the single shortUuid parameter, but the description's mention of 'Short UUID' effectively labels the identifier and its format intent. That is a marginal gain over the bare string type; no format example or validation detail is given.

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+resource (get user) and the lookup key (Short UUID), which distinguishes it from get_user_by_id and get_user_by_username among the siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling lookups such as find_user or resolve_user. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the required identifier.

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