get_dividend_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a limit ('up to 50 instruments') but does not explain return format, date range, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the 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 a single, tight sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the essential purpose and a key limitation in a highly efficient manner, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

For a simple read tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It explicitly states the output nature (dividend dates and amounts) and the input limit, giving the agent enough context to decide when to use it. Minor gaps like date range specifications are absent but not critical for this tool.

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%, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning about the parameter, merely repeating the max 50 constraint. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('dividend dates and amounts'). It also includes a scope limitation ('up to 50 instruments') which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_prices_by_date or get_reports.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list rather than receiving direct instructions.

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