HubSpot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only (likely, but not confirmed), what the output format is (no output schema exists), pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter but not explained), rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic search tool, though it could benefit from being more informative. The structure is straightforward, though not front-loaded with critical details beyond the core purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, pagination, error handling, or how parameters interact. For a search tool with rich filtering capabilities, this leaves the agent guessing about proper usage and expected behavior.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'contact-specific filters' which partially relates to the 'filterGroups' parameter but doesn't explain any parameters' purposes, formats, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Search contacts with contact-specific filters' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('contacts'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling search tools like crm_search_companies or crm_search_leads, nor does it specify what makes the filters 'contact-specific' beyond the obvious. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use crm_search_contacts versus crm_get_contact (for single contact retrieval) or crm_list_objects (for unfiltered listing), nor does it indicate prerequisites like authentication needs. The phrase 'contact-specific filters' is vague and doesn't help the agent choose between this and other search tools.

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