Trustpilot Data (Legacy Alias)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosuretons. It only states that the tool is a legacy alias and that the canonical tool should be preferred; it does not describe what the tool does, side effects, return behavior, async implications, or any operational constraints. The alias status is useful but not enough behavioral context.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The legacy-alias status is stated firstable, and the routing recommendation follows immediately. It earns its place as a compact deprecation notice.

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?

The tool is a simple alias with a well-covered schema and an output schema, so the structured data fills many gaps. However, the description does not independently state what the tool does or how its behavior relates to trustpilot_data beyond being an 'alias.' For a legacy alias, the deprecation guidance is communicated, but an agent would still need to consult the canonical tool's description for full context.

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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema, including query, execution_mode, async, fields, webhook, and enrichment. The description adds no additional parameter meaning and does not need to because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 makes its relationship to the sibling clear, but it does not state the actual function with a verb and resource. The title 'Trustpilot Data' and the schema's query description imply it retrieves Trustpilot data, but the description itself only describes its alias/deprecation status.

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 names the preferred alternative and the condition: 'Prefer trustpilot_data for new integrations.' This clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs it to the correct sibling able. It does not spell out 'use this only for legacy integrations,' but that is strongly implied by the word 'Legacy.'

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