run_trustpilot_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the key behavioral trait: '1 point per returned record', which tells the agent that cost scales with volume, a genuinely useful fact. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, freshness, or what happens when max_items exceeds available reviews, which matters for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence covering purpose, input format, and returned fields, followed by a short cost note. The purpose is front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields and discloses the per-record cost. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or review-ordering behavior that the schema's max_items cap hints at but does not explain.

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 both parameters (business, max_items) are already documented with examples and bounds. The description's 'by domain or URL' restates schema content, and 'rating, text, and author' describes outputs rather than parameters, so 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 customer reviews for a Trustpilot business') and names the returned fields (rating, text, author), so the agent knows this is the review-listing sibling rather than the business or search endpoint. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with run_trustpilot and run_trustpilot_search, which share the same provider.

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 description gives an input format (domain or URL) but no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling run_trustpilot or run_trustpilot_search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the split from the tool names alone.

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