dividend

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

Discloses data sources (business report alotMatter, cash/stock decisions), fallback logic, handling of corrective disclosures (is_superseded flag), and rules against adding future promises. This is comprehensive beyond what annotations typically provide.

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 tags (desc, when, rule, scope, ref) and front-loaded with key information. A bit dense but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (7 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers data sources, behavioral rules, scope options, and references to related tools. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand usage and constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains the scope parameter well (summary, detail, history) but does not clarify year, years, start_date, end_date, or format. Overall adds partial value but not complete.

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 actual paid dividend facts (DPS, total amount, payout ratio, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like value_up for future policies. The verb 'check' and resource 'dividend facts' are specific.

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 (check actual paid dividends) and when not to (use value_up for future policies). Also provides guidance for quarterly companies to use history scope. No ambiguity.

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