hubspot_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does so well by self-declaring READ-ONLY safety and disclosing the surprising mode switch (omitting `query` turns a search into a list-recent-records operation). It does not cover pagination, result shape, or rate limits, but the critical behavioral traits are disclosed and nothing contradicts the schema.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose, safety flag, then the key usage rule. The most decision-relevant information (what the tool does, that it is read-only, and how the query param alters behavior) is front-loaded before any secondary details.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and mode semantics, while the schema fully documents parameters (including the setup caveat for instance). The main gaps are the lack of explicit differentiation from similar siblings (hubspot_find_across) and no hint about what the result set looks like, but these are secondary for a search tool.

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, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains that omitting `query` changes the operation entirely to listing recent records — a semantic the schema's static description ('Free-text search string') does not convey. The other parameters (limit, object, instance, properties) are fully documented by the schema, so no compensation is needed there.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (a HubSpot CRM object in a chosen portal), and immediately qualifies the scope with 'READ-ONLY.' It also discloses the dual-mode behavior (free-text search vs. listing recent records), which clearly separates it from siblings like hubspot_get and hubspot_find_across without needing to inspect 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?

The description gives clear intra-tool guidance: use `query` for free-text search, omit it to list recent records. However, it never explicitly addresses when to choose this tool over its siblings — particularly hubspot_find_across (search across objects) and hubspot_get — so the agent must infer the routing from names alone.

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