list_marketing_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the HubSpot API quirk that no general state filter exists and only published_only controls published/unpublished filtering, and it documents limit's range and default. Since this is a read-only listing operation, no destructive side-effect caveats are needed.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core action and then using an Args block where every line adds useful information. There is no filler, no restatement of schema titles, and no wasted words.

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 list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers all parameters, their semantics, and an important API limitation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It explains that name_contains is a case-insensitive substring, clarifies the three-state behavior of published_only, and gives limit's valid range and default. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic guidance beyond its schema type.

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 opens with 'List marketing emails', a specific verb and resource combination that unambiguously identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_* tools by naming the exact resource, and from get_marketing_email by using the 'list' verb.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as get_marketing_email, list_blog_posts, or other list_* siblings. It explains how the parameters behave but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit routing conditions, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name.

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