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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing unauthenticated rate limits (1000/hour and 10000/day per address), that chave_api is optional, and that the response carries a `citacao` field that must be cited when using the number. The one-ticker-per-call constraint is also surfaced, which is the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the returned data, then handles access rules and limits, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical endpoint references are slightly dense but each carries routing or provenance value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating every field plus the annual summary and yield windows. Combined with auth, rate-limit, and citation requirements, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates: it explains that ticker is a single company symbol constrained to one per call (mirroring the /empresas/TICKER/dividendos route) and that chave_api is an optional key whose absence triggers the stated rate limits. It stops short of giving the literal ticker format (e.g. PETR4 vs PETR4.SA).

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 — the history of cash proceeds (dividends and JCP) for a single B3 company — and enumerates exactly what comes back (value per share, approval date, ex-date, ex-date price, installment, payment date, annual summary, 12-month dividend yield). That field inventory distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like eventos, fatos_relevantes or precos.

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?

Explicit that it is open to all tickers, requires no key, and takes one ticker per call, plus a pointer to the equivalent REST route. It gives clear context for invocation but does not name which sibling to use for adjacent needs (e.g. eventos for non-cash corporate actions).

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