bitrix_list_deals

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that category and stages are matched by name but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, default limit, ordering, or response shape. For a tool with eight parameters, this is a substantial transparency gap.

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 action and then gives a focused filtering instruction. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-clause description is not enough. It omits pagination behavior, default limits, how filters combine, what the returned object looks like, and whether the operation is read-only. A caller would need to inspect the schema and still lack operational context.

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 75%, and the schema already documents that category and stages are 'название' (names), so the description's by-name guidance largely restates existing schema information. It adds little beyond the structured fields, and limit/order have no added explanation. The baseline 3 fits because the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 identifies the resource and action: listing Bitrix24 deals. It also adds a useful qualifier that category and stages are specified by name, which helps distinguish this tool from lower-level deal operations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_deal, but the name and phrasing are unambiguous enough.

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 instruction to specify category and stages by name provides a clear, actionable usage hint for filtering. However, it does not state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives like get_deal, create_deal, or list_deal_comments, nor does it give exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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