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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: page size (20 reviews per page) and the cost model (billed $0.005 per page), which directly affects how an agent should budget calls.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and inputs, then return fields, then filtering/pagination/billing. No filler, and the cost-critical fact is included rather than buried.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing both the profile fields and the per-review fields, plus page size and billing. That is enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly without an output schema.

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 in the schema, including enums for sort_by and posted_ago. The description's filter list ('stars, recency, language, verified, replied or keyword') largely restates schema fields without adding syntax or format detail. 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 and resource ('Get a company's Trustpilot reviews and profile') and pins down the input mode ('by domain or Trustpilot URL'), which separates it from the search-style siblings like search_trustpilot_companies. It also enumerates the profile payload (TrustScore, stars, breakdown, claimed/verification status), so an agent knows exactly what class of data it gets.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: needing a specific company's reviews/profile by domain or URL selects this tool over the search endpoints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no named alternative for discovering a company you don't yet have a domain for.

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