run_trustpilot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful non-schema context ('full profile', the cost of 'Flat 5 points per successful run', and that it works on domain or URL), but it omits read-only confirmation, failure behavior for unknown/unclaimed domains, and whether an exact domain match is required.

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 short sentences: capability and payload first, cost second. Nothing redundant or padding; every clause 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the return shape (rating breakdown, claim status, reply behavior) and discloses the credit cost. It falls short only on operational edge cases such as unknown domains or rate limits.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already states 'Business domain or Trustpilot URL. e.g. hubspot.com'. The description repeats the same domain-or-URL semantics without adding format, normalization, or edge-case detail, 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') and enumerates the returned payload (rating breakdown, claim status, reply behavior). The 'by domain or URL' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from run_trustpilot_search and run_trustpilot_reviews, but neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: 'by domain or URL' hints that this is a direct entity lookup rather than a keyword search, which is the relevant distinction from run_trustpilot_search. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given.

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