Get a Juggle sitter's profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: an explicit list of private fields (phone, birthdate, emergency contacts, background-check answers, social handles) that are never returned, and a security warning that third-party-authored text is untrusted data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the privacy guarantee and the untrusted-content warning in a strong closing position. The middle field enumeration is a long run-on list — justified somewhat because there is no output schema, but it is denser than it needs to be.

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 return-value burden itself and does so by enumerating the returned fields and, more importantly, the fields explicitly excluded. Combined with the id-provenance note and the untrusted-content caveat, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — the view enum's compact/full/raw semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description still adds value by specifying provenance for profile_id (list_sitters, list_favorites, or booking applicants) and by hinting at the favorites/messageability fields, which the schema does not cover.

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 one Juggle sitter's public profile') and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains, so an agent can distinguish it from juggle_get_profile, juggle_list_sitters, or juggle_get_reviews 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?

It gives a concrete precondition for the required parameter — profile_id 'comes from juggle_list_sitters, juggle_list_favorites or a booking's applicants' — which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming how this differs from the sibling juggle_get_profile or when to prefer juggle_get_reviews for reputation data, so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not.

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