Задачи

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds credential prerequisites (AMOCRM_DOMAIN, AMOCRM_TOKEN), automatic rate-limit compliance (7 req/s), and result ordering ('ближайшие сроки первыми'). That is behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

One dense but well-ordered paragraph: scope semantics first, then return shape, then use cases and alternatives, then prerequisites. Every clause carries information, though the sentence count is low and the block is longer than strictly needed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (count, tasks with id, text, due, overdue, responsible, entity_type, entity_id), the ordering, auth requirements and rate limits. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so limit, scope, lead_id and responsible_user_id are already documented in the schema with the same wording. The description echoes the scope enum verbatim and only loosely maps 'фильтры по ответственному и по сделке' onto the two filter params, 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?

States a specific resource (незавершённые задачи) and scope semantics, and explicitly routes sibling operations ('поставить задачу — crm_create_task, закрыть — crm_complete_task'). An agent can distinguish this from every other crm_* tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('что просрочено у менеджера', планирование дня) and names the alternative tools for the adjacent write operations. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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