crm_stages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic context about deal stages vs lead statuses and the downstream use of stage IDs, but it does not elaborate on response behavior or edge cases. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, compact sentence with the core subject front-loaded and a genuinely useful parenthetical about why stage IDs matter. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 reference tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential scenario and cross-tool purpose. An explicit 'returns a list of stages/statuses' phrasing would make it unambiguous, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents entity values ('deal' vs 'lead') and category_id behavior. The description mostly restates the deal/lead distinction and emphasizes the stage ID's purpose, adding little new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource clearly: 'Воронки и стадии сделок или статусы лидов' (funnels and deal stages or lead statuses), and explains that the stage ID is needed for filtering and changing stageId. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', which keeps it from a 5, but the object and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from entity-focused siblings like crm_list and crm_get.

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 parenthetical gives a concrete usage context: the stage ID from this tool is required for filtering and for changing stageId. This is clear but not exhaustive — it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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