get_dividends

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves historical dividend data with ex-rights dates and the A-share restriction. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe error handling, but for a data query tool the behavior is clear enough.

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 compact one-line purpose plus a two-line parameter list. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. Slight structure improvement could separate the Args block visually, but it is already concise and scannable.

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?

Given an output schema exists, no return-value explanation is needed. The description covers parameter meaning and the A-share constraint. It is complete for a simple query tool, though it could mention the 'count' default behavior (already in schema) or any sorting order of results.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully documents both parameters: 'symbol' as stock code and 'count' with a maximum of 50. This compensates completely for the lacking schema descriptions.

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 states the exact resource (historical dividend/bonus plans and ex-rights/ex-dividend dates) and limits to A-shares. This is specific and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which cover dividends.

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 clearly states the scope (A-shares only), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. Since no sibling tool covers dividends, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, but the description could have noted when this tool should not be used (e.g., for Hong Kong stocks).

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