dividends_by_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Gets dividend history,' implying read-only, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The agent has minimal insight beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and parameter. No superfluous information, and the structure is intuitive with a separator for arguments.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It does not discuss error conditions, expected symbol validity, or data range, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete. Missing guidance on potential edge cases (e.g., invalid symbol) keeps it from a 5.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear explanation ('Stock ticker symbol') and an example ('AAPL'). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it could include more details like format restrictions.

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 'Gets dividend history for a specific stock symbol,' specifying the verb 'gets' and the resource 'dividend history.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dividends' by emphasizing single symbol, making purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dividends' or 'schwab_get_dividends_by_symbol.' There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so the agent cannot determine optimal usage.

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