Dividends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: newest-first ordering, the two dividend types, the exact fields returned, and that an empty list means no records exist rather than an error. It doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination interactions, so not a 5.

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 dense sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the empty-list caveat. Every clause carries information, though the colon-list construction is slightly packed and could be split for readability.

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 the returned fields and their semantics, and annotations cover the safety profile. Pagination is handled by the schema, so the remaining gap is minor: no note on whether historical coverage differs per market or symbol type.

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 100%, with page, limit, market and symbol all documented inline (including enum meanings and defaults). The description adds nothing syntactic about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; 'Any market' loosely gestures at the market param but adds no new meaning.

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 names a specific resource (an instrument's dividends) and enumerates the returned fields (cash/stock, record date, payment dates, currency, status), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_financials or get_price_performance, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though sibling tools like get_financials plausibly overlap. The 'Any market' and 'empty list' notes are behavioral facts rather than routing guidance, leaving usage to inference.

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