Найти контакт

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Только чтение' simply restates it without adding anything. The useful addition is the disclosed return surface (phones, e-mail, owner, related deal/company ids), which matters because no output schema exists; auth, rate limits and pagination go unmentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences with the search capability front-loaded and the read-only caveat last. No filler, though the parenthetical use case could be trimmed.

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?

Covers purpose, search fields, return fields, and safety, which is most of what a 2-param read tool needs when there is no output schema. The undocumented 'limit' and absent pagination behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains that 'query' accepts a name, phone, or e-mail, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its 1-100 range.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Ищет контакты') with the three searchable field types named. It implicitly distinguishes itself from crm_search_leads/crm_get_lead by operating on contacts rather than leads, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete use context ('удобно для входящего звонка или письма') that tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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