Отчёт по воронке продаж

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's closing 'Только чтение' is consistent with that rather than contradicting it. It omits operational behavior the annotations don't cover — notably what the max_leads cap of 3000 (up to 10000) means for completeness of results, and whether output is paginated or truncated.

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?

Two sentences front-load the metric inventory before the example questions, and the 'read only' note closes it. No filler, though the metric enumeration is dense and the example questions add modest value.

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 burden of describing return content and does so thoroughly (stages, won/lost, conversion, averages, manager split). The main gap is behavioral: it doesn't explain the max_leads sampling limit or what happens when a large date range exceeds it.

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 75%, just under the high-coverage threshold, so the schema itself documents created_from, created_to, and pipeline_id. The description only alludes to the date period conceptually ('за период создания сделок') and says nothing about max_leads, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific deliverable: analytics on the sales funnel for the deal-creation period, enumerating the metrics returned (per-stage counts/amounts, won/lost, conversion, average check, average cycle days, manager breakdown). This clearly separates it from the CRUD-oriented siblings (crm_search_leads, crm_create_lead), though it never names them explicitly to draw the line.

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 gives concrete use-case prompts ('how are sales going this month', 'which manager closes better'), which effectively signals when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternative tools such as crm_stale_leads for at-risk deals, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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