Зависшие сделки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Только чтение' merely repeats that. It does add real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the default 7-day threshold and, importantly, the return shape (sorted by budget, with responsible, stage, and days idle) since no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first defines the stale condition, the second covers sorting and returned fields. Efficient, though the clause list in sentence two is slightly dense.

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 usefully sketches the return fields and sort order, and fully explains the staleness rule. However, it leaves the semantics of limit, pipeline_id, and responsible_user_id unexplained, which is a real gap for a 5-parameter filtering tool.

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 only 40%: days and include_no_task are documented in the schema, but limit, pipeline_id, and responsible_user_id have no description anywhere. The description echoes the 7-day default and mentions 'с ответственным' (responsible), but does not compensate for the three undocumented parameters as a <50% coverage case requires.

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 resource (open deals) and the precise condition that makes them stale (no change for 7+ days by default, or no scheduled task), which clearly defines the tool's purpose. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the closest sibling (crm_search_leads), which also returns lead lists.

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 defines the staleness criteria that trigger inclusion, which implies when the tool is relevant, but gives no explicit 'use this instead of crm_search_leads when...' guidance or exclusion conditions. The criteria are inferable rather than stated as usage rules.

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