obter_carteira_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Recupera' implies a read, but nothing is said about authentication, whether the result is scoped to the current user or account, or how much data is returned. The 'Returns: Dict with success and either data or error' line is about return shape, which the existing output schema already covers, so it adds little behavioral value.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the operation in the first sentence. The Returns block is redundant given an output schema exists, but it occupies only two lines and does not bury the main statement.

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 tool with an output schema, return-value detail is not needed, so the main gap is conceptual scoping: with ten 'obter_*' siblings, the description should say what 'carteira' covers. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about overlap with posicao/rentabilidade/extrato.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is reported at 100%.

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?

It gives a clear verb+resource ('Recupera informacoes da carteira'), so the agent knows this is a read of portfolio data. However, 'carteira' overlaps heavily with ten siblings (obter_posicao_tool, obter_rentabilidade_tool, obter_extrato_tool, obter_ativos_tool), and the description never says what portfolio information distinguishes this tool. The purpose is identifiable but not discriminable from siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the many sibling tools. An agent facing obter_carteira_tool next to obter_posicao_tool and obter_rentabilidade_tool has no stated criterion for choosing this one.

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