Trusted Shops Scraper: Shop Leads, Ratings, Reviews & Alerts

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the per-result cost model broken out by operation type (run start, shop, company profile, review) and the implicit requirement of an Apify account. It does not cover run duration, volume limits, or failure behavior, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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, front-loaded with the capability before the pricing detail; no filler. The pricing clause is dense and list-like, but it is the only place cost is disclosed, so it earns its space.

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 does part of the return-value job by naming the fields coming back (company, contact, rating, review volume) and the dual shop-vs-review output modes. Missing are output format specifics and any mention of how results are delivered per run, but for a read-only scraper this is largely sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly (including the 12-month review window and the '10,000+ is a large shop' heuristic). The description's cost list loosely maps result types (shop, company profile, review) to what the run will produce, adding modest value beyond the schema, which justifies the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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?

Names a specific resource (Trusted Shops listings) and two distinct modes: shop discovery by keyword/country, and review retrieval for a given shop, plus the fields returned (company, contact, rating, review volume). It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so ambiguity is low.

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?

The two modes (search by keyword/country vs. fetch reviews for named shops) imply usage, and the 'pay per result' line hints that broad runs are costly, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or which mode to pick for a given goal. The real routing guidance ('export the reviews of your own shop or competitors') lives in the shops parameter schema, not the description.

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