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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by stating it is a read-only query, updated according to announcements, supports Hong Kong stocks via a 5-digit code format, and lacks ETF dividend detail. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or detailed return behavior, but the output schema exists and the safety profile is covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then alternative routing, safety/update behavior, Hong Kong support, and ETF caveat. It is dense but every sentence carries a distinct operational point; slightly more structure could improve readability but there is 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?

Given that the tool has only two well-described parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the main ambiguity against ashare_events, states read-only/update behavior, and handles Hong Kong and ETF edge cases.

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 the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds useful meaning for the code parameter by clarifying Hong Kong stock support with the hk00700 format, but it does not add much about years beyond the schema's default-3 documentation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource and scope: historical dividend/bonus-share/ex-rights records with per-share dividend, bonus shares, and ex-dividend dates. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling ashare_events calendar tool, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

It says exactly when to use this tool for dividend/g股息/送转 questions and names the alternative for a dividend-payment calendar: use ashare_events instead. It further gives ETF-specific exclusions and points to the relevant ETF overview path.

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