bx24_crm_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that the tool performs aggregation across multiple CRM entities and returns counts, lead statuses, and deal funnels in a single call, including the REST version support. However, it does not disclose response format details, whether counts are live or approximate, or any limits, which are relevant for a zero-parameter aggregate tool.

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 opening sentence is clear and front-loaded with the essential behavior: aggregate CRM counts plus statuses and funnels. However, the RU/EN bilingual section largely repeats the same information, adding length without new substance for an English-language agent. It is not egregiously verbose, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 zero-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual information: what data is summarized, that it includes statuses and funnels, and that it is a one-call operation. Sibling tools make the alternative paths obvious. It does not document exact response fields, but that is less critical given the simple, self-contained nature of the tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately explains what the no-parameter call returns, which is sufficient. A baseline of 4 is appropriate here because the description compensates for the lack of any parameter detail by defining the tool's output focus.

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 clear resource ('Bitrix24 CRM summary') and specifies what it provides: total counts of leads, deals, contacts, companies, plus lead statuses and deal funnels. It is distinguishable from sibling entity-specific tools like bx24_crm_leads or bx24_crm_deals because it explicitly emphasizes aggregate summary data. It lacks a strong imperative verb like 'gets' or 'returns', but the intent is unmistakable.

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 implies this tool is for high-level CRM overviews ('total counts', 'summary', 'in one call'), which suggests using it instead of querying individual CRM entity tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as bx24_crm_leads or bx24_crm_deals, nor does it mention exclusions like 'for detailed lists use the entity-specific tools'. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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