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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the tool provides both historical and future dividends, along with source and freshness, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose any limitations, data freshness guarantees, or potential error conditions, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence in Polish that directly states what the tool returns and includes key data attributes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff. Slightly short, but effective for a simple read-only tool.

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?

For a read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the data returned (historical and future dividends, amount, date, source, freshness). There is no critical information missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it, though it could mention ordering or currency, which is minor.

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?

The sole parameter `symbol` is fully described in the schema as 'Ticker spółki' (company ticker). The tool description mentions 'spółki' but does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the parameter is already well-documented, and the description adds marginal value beyond it.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a company's dividend history and known future dividends, including amount, date, source, and freshness. This clearly identifies the resource (dividends) and the action (get), distinguishing it from other get_* tools that cover different financial data like earnings or prices.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and content imply it is for dividend-specific queries, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools (e.g., using get_earnings_calendar for earnings instead). Usage context is implied but not formalized.

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