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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that future (known) dividends are included, that 'amount' is per-share cash as a decimal string or null for non-cash distributions, and that the cursor and filters must be preserved across pages. However it says nothing about ordering, permissions, or rate limits, so coverage is partial.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, then response semantics, then the pagination contract. Every sentence carries information, though the 'amount' note concerns the response shape rather than invocation and slightly dilutes focus.

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, so the description partially compensates by explaining the amount field and the page.next_cursor contract. For a 7-parameter financial-data tool it still omits result ordering, how future vs historical rows are distinguished, and any call prerequisites, leaving it merely adequate.

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% and every one of the 7 parameters is documented in the schema itself (symbol formats, date format, dividend_type values, limit range, cursor semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that filtering is by date/type, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get historical and known future dividends') plus the filtering scope (date/type) and pagination, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_dividend_calendar or get_dividends_ttm, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_dividends_ttm or get_dividend_calendar, nor any prerequisites. The only procedural guidance is pagination-related ('preserve the top-level page.next_cursor and unchanged filters'), which is not tool-selection guidance.

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