schwab_get_dividends_by_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get dividend payments,' implying a read-only operation, but provides no details on side effects, rate limits, pagination, response format, or error handling. The lack of any behavioral context beyond a simple verb leaves the agent uninformed about important operational traits.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence followed by bullet-point parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted text.

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 filtered-list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks context about the scope of dividends (e.g., cash vs stock), handling of invalid symbols, and relationship to other dividend tools. The agent may miss important usage 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?

The description adds limited value over the schema: it notes case-insensitivity for symbol, the source of account_hash, and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but does not fully explain all parameter nuances (e.g., default date range, allowed symbol patterns).

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?

Clearly states 'Get dividend payments for a specific symbol in a Schwab account.' The verb and resource are specific, and it differentiates from broader tools like schwab_get_dividends by emphasizing a specific symbol. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the account context beyond 'in a Schwab account', which is inferred from the required account_hash.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative dividend tools (e.g., schwab_get_dividends, dividends_by_instrument). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommendations. The description only implies usage through its name and parameters, leaving the agent to guess the best tool for different scenarios.

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