Аккаунт, воронки и менеджеры

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: 10-minute result caching with an instruction not to re-call, required AMOCRM_DOMAIN/AMOCRM_TOKEN credentials, and an automatic 7 req/s rate-limit compliance note. None of this is derivable from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose first, then the 'call this first' directive, then cache/credentials/rate-limit operational notes, ending with the read-only confirmation. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information despite the density.

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?

With no output schema and no input parameters, the description fully carries the burden: it describes the return shape (account fields, user fields, pipeline/status fields), when to call it, the auth requirements, caching behavior, and rate-limit handling. An agent has everything needed to invoke and consume it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description compensates somewhat by naming the field groups returned, but there is no parameter syntax to explain.

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?

States a concrete resource (amoCRM/Kommo account directory) and enumerates exactly what it returns: account (name, subdomain, currency), users (id, name, email, active), and pipelines with statuses (id, name, type open/won/lost). This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from every sibling, none of which are account-level reference lookups.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Вызывайте первым в разговоре' and justifies it: pipeline/stage/manager ids are required for the filters of crm_search_leads, crm_tasks, crm_pipeline_report and for writes via crm_create_lead/crm_update_lead. It names both the context in which to call it and the downstream tools it feeds, so no inference is required.

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