Карточка сделки

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real context: it performs 3–5 API calls, requires AMOCRM_DOMAIN and AMOCRM_TOKEN, auto-handles the amoCRM 7 req/s limit, and returns an error for a non-existent id. The only weak point is the redundant 'Только чтение' repetition of readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loads the returned payload, then usage, then operational constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only minor waste is restating read-only, which annotations already cover.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (field-level detail for contacts, company, tasks, notes). Error behavior, auth, and rate-limit handling are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 50% – id is documented in the schema and notes_limit is not. The description mentions 'последние notes', implicitly signalling that the notes count is bounded, but never names or bounds notes_limit, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('полная карточка одной сделки по id') and explicitly enumerates the added payload (contacts, company, open_tasks, notes) over the sibling crm_search_leads. An agent can distinguish it from the search tool without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('перед звонком или письмом клиенту, чтобы понять историю') and tells the agent exactly where to source the id ('из crm_search_leads или crm_find_contact'). Alternatives and their selection conditions are named.

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