div_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (parsing cash dividend decisions), aggregation method (by event), and that dividend type is from the disclosure itself. Does not mention rate limits or side effects, but read-only nature is implicit.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref) that front-load the purpose. Each sentence adds value, and the description is thorough without being verbose.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, data source, and aggregation rules. Does not explain parameters (years, format) but has output schema. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, it is fairly comprehensive.

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%, and description does not explain the 'years' or 'format' parameters. 'ticker' is obvious. The description mentions trends over years but not explicitly linking to the years parameter. Inadequate compensation for low coverage.

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 provides dividend history/trends aggregated by disclosure, listing specific data points like DPS, dividend changes, and types. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing related tools (div_detail, ownership_treasury_tx).

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 states when to use (checking dividend trends, changes, signals) and provides a rule explaining data aggregation from exchange disclosures. No exclusion of alternatives, but the when section gives clear context.

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