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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 front-loaded sentence covering purpose and outputs, followed by a short billing note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no annotations, no output schema, no nesting), and the description covers what is returned and the cost. It is adequate to call correctly, but a keyword-search tool with 140+ siblings would benefit from naming its counterpart endpoints and confirming pagination behavior.

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 both parameters (query and max_items) are already fully documented with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the return fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (Trustpilot businesses) and enumerates returned fields (name, domain, rating, review count). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_trustpilot (business detail lookup) or run_trustpilot_reviews, though the 'by keyword' framing implies search semantics.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling run_trustpilot lookup or run_trustpilot_reviews. The agent must infer that this is the keyword-based discovery entry point rather than the detail endpoint.

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