bx24_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention underlying REST methods and aggregations, which hints at read-style behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how results are grouped/returned, whether destructive actions are possible, or any rate-limit/error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by report types, underlying methods, and multilingual keywords. The RU/EN keyword list adds some value for multilingual user queries, though it is slightly repetitive; overall it is concise and not padded.

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?

This is a multi-action reporting tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return shapes, pagination behavior, or how to choose among the six actions beyond what the schema already says. An agent would still face significant uncertainty about what to expect from a call, especially for aggregation results.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the action enum and filter/order/select examples. The description adds little beyond naming the report categories that map to action values, so the 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 opens with 'Bitrix24 analytics & reports' and enumerates six concrete report types (deal pipeline, lead sources, user activity, task completion, deal conversion, funnel stages), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from generic CRM/task sibling tools by emphasizing analytics and aggregation, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied through the report-type vocabulary: an agent can infer this tool is for analytical/reporting questions rather than raw CRUD operations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over siblings like bx24_crm_deals or bx24_tasks, nor any 'when not to use' or alternative selection criteria.

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