hubspot_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does state 'READ-ONLY' plus the output scope (standard and custom object types). It does not describe error cases or exact response shape, but for a simple read-only list operation this is adequate.

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 two compact sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second adds the read-only flag and a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it states purpose, return scope, safety, and a concrete use case. An agent has enough to decide when and how to invoke it 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?

The only parameter, instance, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific resource and behavior — 'List the CRM object types available in a portal' — and clarifies the standard-plus-custom distinction, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like search/get/describe without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before searching a non-standard object,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full routing explanation.

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