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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query, but it never defines what '近期' (upcoming) means, such as the look-ahead window, whether the result is paginated or capped, or what happens for delisted or invalid codes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves real behavioral gaps.

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?

Both sentences are short and front-load the resource description before the parameter behavior. The Chinese and English versions are near-verbatim duplicates, which is redundant for a monolingual agent but serves internationalization. There is no filler beyond that duplication.

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?

This is a simple, one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description is close to sufficient. The main gap is that 'upcoming' is never quantified, so an agent cannot tell what date horizon the returned calendar covers. That is a meaningful omission given there is no output schema to clarify it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: the query is optional and accepts either a stock code or a stock name. That is the key semantic the bare string-typed schema lacks. The description omits format details, such as whether codes must be numeric or zero-padded, but the core meaning is conveyed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: querying upcoming TWSE/TPEx ex-dividend and ex-right dates, optionally for a named or coded stock. It clearly separates this from quote-style siblings like stock_quote, though it never names an alternative tool. The scope (listed/OTC companies, upcoming dates) is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'optional code or name' implies the tool can be called with no arguments to get a broad schedule and with one argument to narrow the result, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no advice on choosing between a code and a name, and no direction relative to stock_quote or other siblings.

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