search_deals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. It only states the search scope and filter, leaving the agent without critical context about the operation's side effects and constraints.

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 a single sentence with an example, which is concise and front-loads the primary function. It wastes no words, but it could be more structured by separating the primary purpose from the usage example for clarity, though it remains efficient.

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 simple search tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core search capability and filter. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, response format, pagination) makes it incomplete for an agent that needs to understand side effects and result handling, especially given no annotations.

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?

The schema already documents two of three parameters (query and dealStage) with descriptions, giving 67% coverage. The description adds some contextual value by clarifying that the search is by name and that dealStage is a filter, but it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's semantics beyond its default and range, so it doesn't fully compensate for the remaining gap.

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 clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('HubSpot deals'), and a specific search dimension ('by name'). It also names an optional filter (pipeline stage), which helps distinguish it from other search tools like search_contacts and search_tickets, though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings.

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 provides a concrete example of when to use this tool ('what deals are in the proposal stage'), which helps the agent infer appropriate usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_deal for retrieving a specific deal by ID, so some guidance is left implicit.

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