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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing that 'enabled false when HubSpot is not connected,' a precondition/state signal an agent cannot get from the annotations. The dashboard note further prevents a futile search for connect/disconnect tools.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the disconnected-state caveat and the dashboard routing note. Each sentence carries information; the dashboard sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by preventing a wrong tool search.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and the description still signals what the response contains (type and options). It also covers the disconnected precondition. The only gap is that it never states the listing's scope or size/ordering behavior, which is minor for this tool.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that workspace_id comes from list_my_workspaces and when it is required. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage — baseline 3.

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 names the exact resource (contact properties of the connected HubSpot portal) and what it carries (type and options), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the dForms-centric siblings like list_forms or list_integrations. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the 'list' action comes from the title rather than the body text.

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 supplies the purpose context that selects this tool ('what a HubSpot destination can map answers to') and explicitly rules out an alternative interpretation by stating that connecting or disconnecting a provider happens in the dForms dashboard and 'no tool here does it.' What is missing is a direct instruction on when in a workflow to call it, but the intended use case is clear.

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