hubspot_search_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination behavior, result limits, search matching behavior, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action, resource, and supported search fields.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides enough context to understand the core operation. It is not fully complete because it omits sibling differentiation and any result-behavior details, but no critical gap prevents an agent from selecting or calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including query fields, properties, limit, and access_token. The description restates the query fields but adds no additional meaning, constraints, or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource: search HubSpot contacts. It also clarifies that search fields are name, email, or company. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as hubspot_list_contacts or hubspot_get_contact, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Search HubSpot contacts by name, email, or company,' which suggests this tool is for lookup-style queries. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus hubspot_list_contacts or hubspot_get_contact, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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