Карточка сделки

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Только чтение,' which merely repeats readOnlyHint, and lists returned content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens when the record is missing. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds only limited value beyond them.

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 front-loaded, beginning with the returned resource and its contents, followed by usage guidance. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the final 'Только чтение' clause is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the main fields returned, which is important for an agent. It still omits any explanation of notes_limit and edge-case behavior when the record is not found, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 schema describes the required id parameter but leaves notes_limit undocumented, giving 50% schema description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter directly or explain the behavior of notes_limit; 'последние примечания' is too vague to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states that this tool returns a full deal/lead card and enumerates its contents (budget, stage, owner, custom fields, tags, contacts, company, open tasks, recent notes). This makes the resource and scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this single-record fetch from sibling tools like crm_search_leads, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to prepare for a call or understand a client's history, which gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit routing guidance that would earn a 5.

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