div_full_analysis

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the behavioral composition: it merges recent data and 3-year history, includes payout ratio/yield, and covers common/preferred stocks. While operational details like rate limits or authentication are absent, the description adequately conveys the tool's data aggregation behavior for an analysis 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?

The description is highly concise and well-structured using labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref). Every line serves a purpose, with the main function front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity of combining two data sources and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: data included (recent, history, ratios), stock types, and references. It is complete for a comprehensive analysis 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%, but the description fails to explain either parameter (ticker or format). The ticker is implied by tool name and context, but format is not mentioned. The description adds no semantic value beyond the minimal schema, leaving a significant gap.

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 it provides comprehensive dividend analysis including recent DPS, 3-year trend, payout ratio, yield, and covers both common and preferred stocks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like div_detail and div_history by indicating it combines them.

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?

Explicit 'when' clause specifies usage context (comprehensive dividend overview) and 'rule' explains it combines div_detail and div_history, implicitly guiding users to use those sibling tools for specific needs. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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