Get Juggle payments, rates and transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: it never charges, tips, or changes a card, and it never returns Stripe secrets or card ids. That reassures an agent about side effects and data exposure beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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?

The content is front-loaded into one dense enumerative sentence followed by a short caveat about units and a short safety sentence. The long parenthetical list is justified because each item describes returned data, though it makes the opening sentence heavy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly across every section of the payments overview. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering/pagination behavior for transactions beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns credit by explaining the semantic difference the schema only hints at: amounts are US dollars in the …Usd fields while the full view adds raw integer cents in …Cents. This directly clarifies the effect of the view parameter on returned values.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Show your Juggle payments overview") and then enumerates exactly what is returned: hourly sitting rates, booking fee, saved cards, membership, promo codes/credits, and recent transactions. That enumeration makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like juggle_list_bookings or juggle_get_profile without opening a 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?

Usage is implied ("show your payments overview") but the description never says when to call this versus alternatives, e.g. whether recent transactions here supersede juggle_list_bookings or when to prefer this over a profile call. The read-only note gives useful context but is not when-to-use guidance.

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