Задачи

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 'Только чтение' merely restates that rather than adding new behavioral context. It does add useful substance by enumerating the returned fields (text, due date, responsible, linked deal/contact), but says nothing about limits, ordering, or pagination.

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?

Tightly written: the listing scope and filters come first, the return payload follows, and the read-only note closes it. No filler, though the final 'Только чтение' is redundant with the annotations.

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, describing the per-task fields is genuinely helpful, and there are no required parameters or nested structures to explain. Still, the limit parameter goes undocumented and the deal/lead terminology mismatch leaves an agent guessing on one of four inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it partially does: the scope enum is spelled out as 'все / просроченные / на сегодня', and the responsible and deal filters are described. However, the limit parameter (default 100, max 500) is never mentioned, and 'фильтр по сделке' is ambiguous against the actual lead_id parameter name.

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 ('Список незавершённых задач') plus the three scope variants, so an agent can tell it apart from the write-side siblings crm_create_task and crm_complete_task by the listing/read semantics. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

The description implies when to use it — to enumerate open/overdue/today tasks, optionally filtered by responsible or deal — but gives no when-not guidance and never contrasts with crm_create_task, crm_complete_task, or crm_stale_leads. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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