get_dividends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data comes from a periodic report and that labels are Korean, including mappings for key dividend fields, but it does not state read-only behavior, permission needs, or response shape beyond the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose before adding the Korean-label caveat. The field list and example mappings are useful, though there is minor repetition between the English field names and the Korean label examples.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. The description covers the dividend fields and Korean label issue, but with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, it leaves parameter semantics and sibling differentiation underspecified.

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 should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the company, year, or period parameters, nor does it map period enum values to report types, leaving input semantics almost entirely to the bare schema titles.

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 identifies a specific resource and source: dividend data from a periodic report, including DPS, payout ratio, yield, and total paid. It is clear what kind of data the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_financial_statements.

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 implies the tool is for dividend data but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like get_financial_statements or get_recent_filings. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.

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