get_corporate_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns historical records per stock, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response format, but the behavior is sufficiently clear for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes helpful bilingual terms (Chinese translations). Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains the tool's scope and distinguishes from a sibling, but could be more complete by mentioning the output format (e.g., list of events). Still, it meets the needs for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 compensate. It explains the 'action_type' enum values (dividends, buybacks, splits) and hints that 'code' is a stock identifier, but does not define 'code' explicitly. This adds some value but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'corporate actions', lists the three types (dividends, buybacks, splits), and distinguishes from sibling tool get_dividend_calendar, which covers forward all-market 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use get_dividend_calendar for a forward all-market dividend calendar versus this tool for per-stock historical records, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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