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 that both dividends and splits are returned, but says nothing about the time range covered, default period, or pagination, which matters for a history-style call.

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?

One sentence, no filler, resource named before the qualifier. Front-loaded and exactly as long as it needs to be.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented with annotations covering the safety profile. The definition is nearly self-sufficient; only the absence of any time-range or routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the symbol format, the ISIN example, and the maxLength. The description's 'for a Yahoo symbol' adds consistency but no new syntax or constraints, matching the baseline 3.

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 a precisely scoped resource (dividend and stock-split history) qualified by the symbol type. This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_history (price history) and get_shares, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the resource named, but the description offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g. get_history for prices). The only routing hint in the whole definition lives in the schema ('For a company name, use search first'), not the description.

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