total_dividends

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 the purpose but omits details like read-only nature, handling of zero dividends, data freshness, or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the purpose.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key information. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately minimal.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail returns. However, for a tool with many siblings and no usage guidance, the description could be more complete by noting that this is a summary or cumulative figure. It is adequate but not excellent.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description does not add anything parameter-related, but none is needed.

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 gets total dividends across all time, using a specific verb 'Gets' and resource 'total dividends'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dividends' (likely detailed list) and 'dividends_by_instrument' (filtered).

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 siblings like 'dividends' or 'schwab_get_total_dividends'. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which is a significant gap given the many related tools.

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