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

The description adds significant behavior beyond annotations: polling up to 3 times at 5-second intervals, pending status return shape, exact task_id requirements, default location/language from the workspace, accepted location/language formats, and invalid_language failing without cost. These details materially help an agent invoke and recover from the tool correctly.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose and platform routing come first, followed by task/polling behavior, then location/language details and workspace. Every segment adds operational value despite the length.

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 7-parameter asynchronous tool with an output schema, it covers nearly everything needed to call correctly: async flow, error cases, defaults, and platform-specific parameters. The main remaining gap is that depth is undocumented, and sibling differentiation from gbp_reviews is absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains platform, target, task_id, location, language, and workspace semantics in detail, including platform-dependent meaning and accepted formats, but it never mentions the depth parameter.

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 states a specific resource and operation: retrieve reviews from Trustpilot or Google Business Profile, with platform-dependent target semantics. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling gbp_reviews tool for Google Business Profile reviews.

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 clear operational usage: omit task_id to start and poll a new task, or pass an existing task_id for a single fetch. It also specifies that location/language apply only to platform='google'. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to use this over gbp_reviews.

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