hubspot_search_deals

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

The annotations already carry the behavioral load—readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint true—so the description is not entirely responsible for disclosure. It does add scope/auth context (JWT, tenant, company) and mentions the dispatcher, but it never explains the side effects or operational behavior of the underlying search action, leaving agents relying on the annotations alone.

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 brief and the argument block is cleanly laid out. It wastes no words and is easy to scan, though the brevity reflects missing content rather than deliberate high-density explanation.

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 description reads like a wrapper stub: it identifies the underlying agent action and mentions routing, but does not describe what a deal search returns, what inputs drive it, what filters or syntax are supported, or how it relates to sibling search tools. With 0% schema description coverage and two free-form parameters, the description is not enough to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives only generic meanings—'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'—which map to the two parameters but do not explain what message wording or input keys the search_deals action expects. An agent would still be guessing about the actual payload.

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 states a specific action—'Run the hubspot domain agent action `search_deals`'—and adds dispatcher routing context, so a reader knows exactly which domain action executes. However, it does not explain what 'search_deals' does or differentiate it from sibling tools like hubspot_search_contacts, hubspot_get_deal, or list_crm_deals.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus any alternative, and names no exclusions or sibling comparisons. The only guidance is routing context ('JWT, tenant, company scope'), which describes implementation plumbing, not selection behavior.

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