Поиск сделок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, and 'Только чтение' merely restates it. The description does add behavior the annotations don't carry: the exact fields returned and the ordering rule ('сначала недавно изменённые'), which materially affects how an agent consumes results.

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, no filler: the first states the search scope and filters, the second states the returned fields, sort order and the read-only nature. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and sort order, and it covers the main filter surface for a 7-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain around 'limit' behavior and the documented dependency of status_id on pipeline_id.

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?

With 57% schema description coverage, the description usefully expands the sparse 'Поисковая строка' into the concrete fields searched (name, phone, e-mail of the contact) and maps the filter concepts to pipeline/stage/responsible/period. It does not explain 'limit' (default 50, max 250) or the pipeline_id+status_id pairing, but it adds real meaning over the schema for most parameters.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Поиск сделок amoCRM/Kommo') and enumerates the match fields (name, phone, e-mail) and filter dimensions (funnel, stage, responsible, creation period), so the agent knows exactly what this does. It never names or contrasts with siblings like crm_stale_leads or crm_pipeline_report, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the described filters and the search-string capability, which is enough to infer 'use this to find leads by text/filters'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no routing to the specialized alternatives (crm_stale_leads, crm_pipeline_report) that also return lead sets.

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