get_dividend

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent read operation with variable results. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the purpose. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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 concise (one sentence) and uses structured XML tags for strategy and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. The description covers the basic purpose and usage. It lacks details like date range or dividend types, but completeness is adequate for a straightforward tool with good annotations and output schema.

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?

There is one required parameter 'symbol'. Schema description coverage is 0% (only title 'Symbol' in schema), but the description provides 'Security symbol' which adds minimal clarification. With only one parameter, the schema combined with the description gives adequate meaning, but no further semantic detail.

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 'Get dividend history for a stock.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_financial_metrics. The strategy tag reinforces direct use with symbol.

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 includes a strategy tag: 'Directly invoke with symbol.' This tells when to use it (for dividend history) and how (directly). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but among many sibling tools the context is sufficiently clear.

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