get_us_dividends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It identifies the tool as returning dividend history and yield, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require authentication, but for a simple 'get' tool, the description provides adequate 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 lean and well-structured: a header, example queries, and a concise args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or excessive text.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters fully, and the sibling tools context shows it fills a specific niche.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: ticker (US ticker with examples) and limit (default value and purpose). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool returns US dividend history with ex-date and yield, and provides specific example queries that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_us_price, get_us_earnings, etc. The verb is implied (get/retrieve) and the resource (dividend history) is explicit.

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 gives concrete example queries (e.g., 'AAPL 배당', 'KO dividend yield') that indicate when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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