crm_find_by_contact_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and non-exhaustive-world profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail — the result is IDs rather than full entities — but does not disclose matching semantics (exact vs partial phone/email match) or multi-value result behavior. 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 wasted words. It does not repeat any schema content or annotation information, and it conveys the full purpose in one line.

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?

The tool is simple: 3 parameters fully documented in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering the read-only and open-world profile. The description states the purpose accurately. The only missing element is usage guidance relative to siblings, which is already captured and penalized under usage_guidelines.

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%: type, entity, and values all carry meaningful descriptions in the schema, including enum options and the up-to-20-item limit. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (найти/find), a specific resource (IDs of leads, contacts, companies) and a specific method (by phone or email). The search-by-contact-info criterion naturally distinguishes it from siblings like crm_get and crm_list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_list or crm_get, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual hint ('where to search; if not specified — in all') lives in the schema's entity parameter, which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance.

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