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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a subject ('dividend and split history') without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, any limits (like number of years), or side effects. The description is a bare phrase and provides no behavioral transparency at all.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being incomplete. It is a fragment rather than a structured sentence, and it omits essential information about usage and parameters. This is not effective conciseness; it is a lack of specification.

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?

Given the tool's two parameters, the large set of sibling tools, and the absence of annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, or how it relates to siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide the basic context needed for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters 'code' and 'years'. However, the description does not mention either parameter or explain that 'code' is a stock identifier and 'years' is a time span. It provides minimal context about the domain but fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 '分红送转历史' conveys that the tool returns dividend and stock split history, but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb or action. It identifies the resource clearly but does not distinguish it from siblings like ashare_finance or ashare_events, which could also cover dividend data. The purpose is vaguely stated but inferable.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. There is no explanatory context that would help an agent decide to choose ashare_dividend over other ashare_* tools.

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