crm_search_deals

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: required OAuth scope ('crm.objects.deals.read'), failure behavior ('denied locally and recorded in the audit log'), caching behavior ('Not cached'), pagination mechanism ('Pass the returned after cursor back for the next page and stop when it is null'), and filtering ('Archived deals are excluded'). No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: main capability, usage guidance, permission/pagination/filtering details. There is no fluff; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly packed with actionable 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary context: it explains pagination, permission requirements, exclusions, and the distinction from sibling tools. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. This is a complete description for an AI agent to select and 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what 'query' matches ('name, amount, or stage text') and how to use the 'after' cursor for pagination. This extra context justifies a 4, though the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 first sentence states a specific action: 'Search HubSpot deals by free-text term and return one page of matches,' clearly distinguishing this from siblings by specifying the resource (deals) and method (free-text search). It also explicitly contrasts with crm_get_deal and crm_list_pipelines, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to find deals by name, amount, or stage text' and then names alternatives: 'Use crm_get_deal when the record id is already known, and crm_list_pipelines to translate the returned pipeline and stage ids into readable labels.' This clearly answers when to use this tool versus others.

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