get_dividends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact return fields (record date, payment date, dividend per share, yield, currency) and the default date window applied when the caller omits dates.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then args — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly redundant in that the returns line and the args block use different formats, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating return fields, and it documents all three parameters plus their defaults. For a simple read-only lookup this is close to complete; pagination or behavior for instruments without dividends is unaddressed but minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explains that instrument_id accepts ticker/FIGI/ISIN/UID, gives the YYYY-MM-DD format for both dates, marks to_date as inclusive, and supplies both defaults. Only the required-vs-optional status is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (dividend payment history and upcoming dividends) scoped to an instrument. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_bond_coupons or get_asset_fundamentals, so an agent can distinguish it at a glance.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The default date windows ('2 years ago' to '1 year ahead') imply a historical-plus-forward-looking use case, but this is inference rather than guidance.

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