Trustpilot Data (Legacy Alias)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that it's a legacy alias, but doesn't describe any behavior, side effects, or how it differs from trustpilot_data. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 key information about being a legacy alias and the preference for trustpilot_data. No wasted words.

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 legacy alias, the description is complete in redirecting agents, but it doesn't explicitly confirm that behavior is identical to trustpilot_data. Given the rich schema and output schema, the description adds the deprecation context but lacks some clarity on whether any differences exist.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the alias implication. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a legacy alias for trustpilot_data, which clarifies its role but doesn't explicitly state the underlying function (fetching Trustpilot data). However, the name and title convey the purpose, and it distinguishes from the sibling trustpilot_data by naming the preferred alternative.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Prefer trustpilot_data for new integrations,' naming the alternative and indicating when not to use this tool. This is clear usage guidance, even though it doesn't specify the exact legacy use case.

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