subscriptions_get_raw_by_short_uuid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes that this is a read operation ('get') but does not say what makes the config 'raw', whether it returns unparsed/undecorated data, or how the response differs from the non-raw lookup. Too little behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 six-word sentence that states the operation and lookup key with zero filler. The key information is front-loaded and nothing in the description wastes the agent's attention.

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?

Despite the tool's low parameter complexity, the surrounding context includes subscriptions_get_by_short_uuid, subscriptions_get_by_id, and subscriptions_get_by_username, with no explanation of what 'raw' means or when it is preferred. Given the schema, annotations, and output schema provide almost no mitigating information, the description alone is insufficient for correct selection.

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 only parameter, shortUuid, is documented in the schema as 'Short UUID'. The description adds nothing beyond echoing that lookup key, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get raw subscription config') plus the lookup key ('by short UUID'). It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling 'subscriptions_get_by_short_uuid' — the word 'raw' is left undefined, so an agent cannot tell what makes this variant different.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of the nearly identical sibling 'subscriptions_get_by_short_uuid', nor any mention of alternatives like subscriptions_get_by_id or subscriptions_get_by_username. The agent must infer the intended use case 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.