Trustpilot Reviews (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 disclosure. It only mentions legacy alias status and says nothing about execution behavior, data returned, side effects, async handling, or rate limits. For a tool with execution_mode and async parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 filler. It front-loads the alias status and immediately communicates the preferred alternative. Every word 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?

The definition is adequate for a legacy alias whose main job is to route agents to trustpilot_reviews, and the rich schema covers parameters and outputs. However, it lacks any operational description of what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the title and schema alone.

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 schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 tp_reviews as a 'Legacy alias for trustpilot_reviews' but never states the actual action or resource, such as fetching Trustpilot reviews. The title and schema implicitly communicate the purpose, but the description itself remains vague and indirect.

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?

It explicitly instructs agents to 'Prefer trustpilot_reviews for new integrations', which gives clear routing guidance away from this alias. It does not elaborate on when legacy usage is acceptable, but the alias status plus preference statement is sufficient context.

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