Отчёт по воронке

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further: it names the required credential (BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm, task, user scopes), states the rate limit (2 req/s) is handled automatically, and documents the 2000-deal ceiling. That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotation block.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the report returns, followed by scope, use cases, and operational constraints. Every clause carries information; it is slightly clause-heavy but with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape — and it does, field by field. Combined with auth, rate-limit, and volume-limit details, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantics by clarifying that dates filter on deal creation date and that omitting them returns all deals up to 2000 — behavior the schema alone does not convey. It does not explain category_id, though the schema field is self-describing.

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 (sales pipeline/summary report) and enumerates the exact output fields (deals, amount, open/won/lost, win_rate_pct, avg_cycle_days, stages, managers) plus the scoping rule (deals created in the period). An agent can distinguish it from b24_search_deals, b24_get_deal, and b24_stale_deals without opening any 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 explicit trigger questions ("как идут продажи в этом месяце", "кто из менеджеров лучше закрывает") and states the no-date fallback behavior (all deals, up to 2000). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to sibling tools, so it is clear on context but not on alternatives.

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