hubspot_get_engagements_by_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get all engagement activities' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'after' param), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., completeness). This leaves gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It uses parentheses for examples without cluttering, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or return format, making it minimally viable but incomplete for full agent guidance.

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 the schema fully documents parameters like dealId, after, limit, and types. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'associated with a deal' which aligns with dealId but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'engagement activities associated with a deal', specifying the scope with examples like calls, emails, meetings, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like hubspot_get_deal_history or hubspot_get_deal_notes by focusing on engagements rather than deal changes or notes specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when needing engagements for a deal, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like hubspot_get_deal_history or hubspot_get_deal_notes. It provides context (deal-based) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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