Карточка сделки

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

The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: missing ids return a specific 'не найдена' error, the call fans out to 4–6 upstream requests, BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user rights is required, and a 2 req/s limit is handled automatically. These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 return contents, then usage, error behavior, cost, prerequisites, and the read-only note. Dense but well ordered with no filler sentences; only slightly list-heavy.

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 compensates by enumerating the return payload field by field, plus error behavior and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and anticipate the response shape.

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 both 'id' and 'comments_limit' are already documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and range 0–50. The description's mention of 'последние комментарии таймлайна' restates the schema text rather than adding format or behavior beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Полная карточка одной сделки по id') and enumerates exactly what the card contains beyond the sibling: comments, contacts, company, open_tasks with due date/overdue flag, and recent timeline comments. It explicitly positions itself relative to b24_search_deals, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 an explicit usage moment ('Используйте перед звонком или письмом клиенту') and names the two sources for the id (b24_search_deals, b24_find_contact). No when-not guidance (e.g., batch lookups, large lists), so it falls just short of the full 5.

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