get_dividend_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explicitly stating that an empty dividends list is a legitimate result, not an error, and that ticker validity is checked separately via .info. This prevents a common false-positive failure interpretation. It could go further by describing the shape of the returned history, but the key behavioral traps are addressed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then adds the two most important behavioral nuances in separate sentences. The parameter docstring is clean and does not repeat schema information verbosely. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and error/empty-result semantics. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned structure or how stock splits are represented would improve completeness, but the current description gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only defines symbol as a required string with no description, so the description fully compensates. It explains the symbol parameter, provides realistic examples (RELIANCE, TCS.NS, TCS.BO), and clarifies exchange-suffix conventions. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: getting dividend and stock-split history for an NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity. This clearly distinguishes the tool from financial-analysis siblings like get_stock_price_history or get_company_profile, and there is no ambiguity about what it returns.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need dividend or stock-split data for an Indian equity. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but its purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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