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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and summarizing the returned profile fields, which is valuable since there is no output 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main capability is front-loaded, followed by the cost note, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input, what is returned, and the cost. It could be improved by explicitly routing to run_trustpilot_reviews or run_trustpilot_search, but nothing essential 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%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('hubspot.com'). The description merely echoes 'by domain or URL' without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get full Trustpilot business profile by domain or URL') and enumerates the profile contents (rating breakdown, claim status, reply behavior). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_trustpilot_reviews and run_trustpilot_search without needing to open 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?

Provides clear context for invocation: you need a business domain or Trustpilot URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., run_trustpilot_reviews for individual reviews) or state when not to use this tool, but the described return contents make the intended use evident.

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