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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral and interpretational details: reviewer identities are never included, aggregates are 'software-weighted' and should be treated cautiously with a thin review base, and the exact status semantics (matched/not_found/null) are defined.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose and data fields first, then status semantics, then an important caveat, then ID-source guidance. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values; it does so thoroughly by listing aggregates, recent review fields, and status values. It also includes the data-quality caveat and prerequisite ID lookup, making the tool safe and actionable for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for companyId by explaining that IDs come from campaignstack_list_companies or campaignstack_get_company. However, it never explains the `limit` parameter, its default behavior, or its effect on the 'recent reviews' portion of the response, leaving an optional parameter under-documented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('a company's Trustpilot reviews and current aggregates'), then enumerates exactly what is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_company_* tools because it is specifically about Trustpilot review data.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve Trustpilot reviews and aggregate scores for a specific company. It also provides practical prerequisite guidance by naming the tools to use to find company IDs. It does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use or alternative review-related tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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