get_dividends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves history, implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, time ranges, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, and every word is essential to conveying the tool's purpose. Highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers what the tool does and the input, but omits any behavioral context, usage tips, or constraints. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-format details, but the description still feels thin.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter ('symbol'), which already includes a clear description and usage hint. The tool description itself does not add any additional information about the parameter, so it neither improves nor detracts from what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('dividend and stock-split history'), and the scope ('for a Yahoo symbol'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_history (price history) or get_company_info (company profile).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The parameter description suggests using 'search' first for company names, but this is about input preparation, not tool selection. No explicit when/when-not or sibling comparisons are given.

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