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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a cost signal ('Free'), duplicated verbatim, and says nothing about what happens when the id is missing or the account isn't connected — modest added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence is appropriate in length, but it ends with 'Free. Free.' — an exact duplication that wastes space and reads as an editing error. Removing it would make the definition tighter without losing information.

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 read-only single-record fetch with rich annotations and full schema coverage, little else is strictly required. Still missing: error behavior for unknown ids, the hubspot_connect dependency, and any note that four object types share this endpoint — gaps an agent could hit at call time.

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%, with the object enum and id pattern fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'usual properties or the ones named' merely restates the properties parameter without adding format or limits (e.g., the 50-item cap already in schema).

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one contact, company, deal or ticket) retrieved by its HubSpot id, which is concrete enough to distinguish it from hubspot_search or hubspot_create. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"By its HubSpot id" implies this is the direct-lookup path rather than a query, and the 'usual properties or the ones named' clause hints at light vs. full retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusion, and no pointer to hubspot_search for id-less lookups or hubspot_connect as a prerequisite.

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