bitrix_find_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description conveys only the basic lookup purpose and API method; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how matching works, what happens with multiple matches, or what the response format is. The method name hints at duplicate search behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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, focused sentence that states the operation, the accepted parameter types, and the underlying API method. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema information. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter lookup tool.

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 tool with two optional schema-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly state that at least one of the two parameters should be provided, nor does it describe the return value when no contacts or multiple contacts are found. Since there is no output schema, a note about the result shape would improve completeness.

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% and each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds meaning by explicitly stating 'и/или' (and/or), clarifying that the phone and email parameters can be used individually or together. This relationship is not fully expressed in the schema, which only lists both as optional strings.

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 exact function: finding a contact by phone and/or email. It names the underlying CRM API method, crm.duplicate.findbycomm, and the verb 'найти' plus resource 'контакт' makes the purpose unambiguous. This also differentiates it from sibling tools like bitrix_list_contacts and bitrix_get_contact.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of bitrix_list_contacts or bitrix_get_contact. The description does not mention that this is a duplicate-finding or precise-communication lookup, nor does it state any prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and method identifier alone.

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