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, and it largely does not: nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or the default behavior when code is omitted. Read-only-ness is only inferable from the verb 查詢. The only behavioral content is the implied set of returned fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource, the sample codes, and the returned fields in one pass. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return fields (配息、除息日、發放日), and the single optional parameter is covered by the schema. Missing only the read-only/scope statement and any note on history depth or sorting.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on a single parameter, the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by listing example valid codes (0056、00878、00919、00929、00713、00940), which is not in the schema. It does not restate the schema's fallback behavior ('不填回傳總表'), but the examples make valid inputs concrete.

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 names a specific verb (查詢) and resource (台股高股息 ETF 配息) and enumerates the returned fields (每期配息、除息日、發放日) plus concrete ETF codes, so an agent immediately knows what data comes back. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this from the sibling estimate_etf_dividend_2027, leaving the actual-vs-estimated distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 每期配息 and specific existing ETF tickers suggests this is for retrieving recorded distributions rather than projections. However, with estimate_etf_dividend_2027 as a sibling, the description never states when to prefer one over the other. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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