Найти контакт

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond that: required BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with specific crm/task/user rights, an auto-enforced 2 req/s rate limit, and the return shape. 'Только чтение' is slightly redundant with readOnlyHint but harmless.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by matching behavior, return values, usage context, and auth/rate-limit notes — each sentence carries distinct information. It is dense but slightly verbose in bundling return fields inline.

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 correctly enumerates the returned contacts fields and the included open deals. Auth requirements and rate limiting are covered. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret results, though the undocumented 'limit' parameter leaves a small gap.

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 50% (only 'query' has a schema description; 'limit' does not). The description compensates by clarifying query semantics — phone format is irrelevant, e-mail uses duplicate search, name matching is substring-based — well beyond what the schema states. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource (finds contacts) and goes further by describing exactly how each input type is matched: phone/e-mail via Bitrix24 duplicate search, name by substring. This distinguishes it from siblings like b24_search_deals and gives an agent enough to know it is a contact-lookup tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'перед звонком и перед созданием сделки' (before calling and before creating a deal), which gives clear invocation context. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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