Зависшие сделки

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the required BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user scopes, the 2 req/s rate limit being handled automatically, the return shape (count, amount_at_risk, deals with reasons) and the largest-first ordering.

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 definition, then return shape, use cases, and prerequisites; each sentence carries information. Slightly list-dense but 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 does the heavy lifting by describing the return payload and ordering, plus auth and rate-limit prerequisites. The main gap is that the filtering parameters (category_id, responsible_id, limit) are never explained, so an agent may not realize it can scope the search.

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 only 25% — just 'days' is documented — and the description adds no semantics for limit, category_id, or responsible_id, which are undocumented in both places. It only echoes the 'days' meaning already present in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: finds open deals that have not changed in more than N days and/or lack open tasks. Scope ('открытые сделки без движения'), the returned payload, and the business question it answers are all named, distinguishing it from b24_search_deals and b24_pipeline_report.

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 clear usage context via the questions it answers ('что у нас зависло', 'где теряем деньги'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating when not to use it.

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