Карточка заявки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds context about the funnel steps history, which hints at data structure, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling or authorization. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by specific fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter retrieve-by-ID tool with read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It lists the key content returned, so an agent knows what to expect. No output schema exists, but the described fields cover the expected payload. Minor omission of error behaviors, but not critical.

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%, with lead_id described as 'id заявки'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain it or edge cases. Given high coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool returns the full lead card with specific fields: parent contacts, subject, teacher, and funnel steps history. This is a clear verb+resource with enumerated content, differentiating it from list tools though not explicitly mentioning a sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus the alternatives like list_leads or search. The need for a lead_id is implied by the parameter, but there is no explicit statement such as 'use this to get detailed info for a single lead'.

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