fetch_paid_out_dividends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about pagination, filtering, and return fields (ticker, amount, paidOn, quantity, nextPagePath), which goes beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence, a usage line, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately mentions return fields but doesn't over-specify. It covers pagination, filtering, defaults, and provides an alternative tool. Combined with annotations, it is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter: cursor (pagination cursor), ticker (filter to instrument), limit (records per page, 1-50, default 20). This adds essential meaning absent from 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 'Retrieve dividend payments received' with specifics (per-share amounts, dates, payouts) and distinguishes from sibling fetch_dividend_summary by noting that this tool provides detailed records vs. a summarized view.

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 says 'Use this to track income from dividend-paying stocks' and provides an alternative: 'For a summarized view grouped by ticker and month, use fetch_dividend_summary instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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