tomticket_list_customer_portfolios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which is a valuable disclosure of a side-effect-free read. It omits details like return format or pagination, but for a parameterless list operation the no-mutation trait is the most important behavior to disclose.

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?

The description is two short clauses with the action front-loaded ('Lista carteiras de clientes') followed by a one-clause safety note. Every word earns its place; there is no duplicate or filler content.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema or annotations it does not describe the return shape, clarify what a customer portfolio consists of, or differentiate this from tomticket_list_customers. An agent can attempt the call confidently, but may not know exactly what result to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. Per the 0-parameter baseline, no additional parameter documentation is needed, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter commentary.

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?

The description states a clear action and resource in Portuguese: 'Lista carteiras de clientes' (lists customer portfolios) and adds the Enterprise qualifier, so it is not merely a restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish customer portfolios from the similar sibling tomticket_list_customers, which prevents a top score.

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?

The intended usage is only implied: use this when a list of customer portfolios is needed; the read-only note also suggests safe use. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no alternative routing among the many sibling list/customer/portfolio commands, and no mention that the Enterprise qualifier may impose access requirements.

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