Find / search Juggle sitters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are scoped to "your city," the date filter only applies within a start_time/end_time window, and the two returned identifiers have distinct downstream purposes. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what an empty result means, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the sibling hand-off. The middle clause listing returned fields is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; the only mild cost is a slightly sprawling sentence structure.

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 compensates by naming the return fields and the two key identifiers. All eight parameters are covered by the schema, annotations cover read-only semantics, and the city scope plus sibling routing complete what an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates them ("available on a date between start_time and end_time, services, keywords, name"). It adds a little by framing them as optional filters usable in combination, but it never mentions the view or limit parameters, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search the Juggle sitters") and immediately disambiguates the domain by naming the sub-types (babysitters, petsitters, nannies, college-student 'Squad'). It also enumerates the fields returned and names the sibling it is not (juggle_list_favorites), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use juggle_list_favorites for just your favorites." It further routes downstream work by explaining that the result carries profileId for juggle_get_sitter and accountId for favorites, reviews and booking invites, which tells the agent exactly when this call is the right entry point.

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