get_us_dividends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns history, ex-date, and yield, and mentions a default limit of 12, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination or data range limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by example queries and parameter explanations. The bilingual content adds a bit of redundancy but is not excessive. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns, example usage, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like data range or pagination are not critical for this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ticker' as a US ticker with examples and 'limit' as the number of recent dividends to display with a default of 12. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but the schema itself is simple and the description covers both parameters adequately.

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, ex-date, and yield, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('US dividends'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on dividend data, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 provides example queries ('AAPL 배당', 'KO dividend yield', 'SCHD 배당 이력', 'ex-date') that indicate when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples give clear usage context.

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