Поиск сделок

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false, so the description goes further: it discloses the BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL requirement with specific scopes (crm, task, user), the automatic 2 req/s rate limit, and the sort order ('свежие изменения первыми'). That is real context beyond the annotations; only return pagination/total-count semantics is left unstated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: capability first, then return shape, then sibling routing, then prerequisites. Every clause carries information; it is slightly long for a single paragraph but has 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (count, total_amount, deals with id/title/amount/category/stage/result/responsible/contact_id/dates) and the sort order, plus auth and rate-limit constraints. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description only maps human labels to parameter names (воронка→category_id, стадия→stage_id, период создания→created_from/created_to), which is a marginal restatement rather than added syntax or format guidance. 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 precise verb and resource ('Ищет сделки') plus the exact match/filter dimensions (substring in title, funnel, stage, responsible, result, creation period). It also names the sibling tools it is not (b24_get_deal, b24_pipeline_report, b24_stale_deals), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly routes: full card with contact/tasks/comments goes to b24_get_deal, aggregate analytics to b24_pipeline_report, stalled deals to b24_stale_deals. Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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