Get reviews of a Juggle sitter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds ordering semantics ('newest as Juggle orders them'), that aggregates (total count, average rating) come back, and an important prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party and untrusted. That safety disclosure is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey; only pagination behavior (limit/offset handling) is left to the schema.

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?

Three sentences: what it returns, where the ID comes from, and the safety caveat. Return fields are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing the review fields plus the total count and average rating. Combined with the schema for parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying account_id is the sitter's accountId sourced from specific sibling tools. It does not touch view/limit/offset, which the schema already explains well.

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 ('Read the reviews other families left for a Juggle sitter') and enumerates the returned fields (date, reviewer, star rating, text, friend flag). This clearly separates it from juggle_leave_review (a write) and juggle_get_sitter (profile data).

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance by naming where account_id comes from (juggle_list_sitters, juggle_get_sitter, or a booking), which tells the agent the prerequisite step. It does not state when to prefer this over a sibling or when reviews are unnecessary, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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