get_dividends_splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: default output is Markdown with an opt-in JSON mode, the payload includes a trailing-period summary, and a no-dividend/never-split ticker yields a short 'none exist' message rather than an error or empty payload. It does not discuss pagination or history depth limits, which keeps it below 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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource and scope before use cases and alternatives, then output behavior. No sentence is redundant and the sibling-routing sentence pulls double duty as both guidance and differentiation.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still covers the meaningful edge case (no dividends/no splits). For a two-parameter read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both ticker and response_format are already documented in the schema, and the description's mention of response_format='json' largely restates that. The only added nuance is that Markdown is the effective default behavior, which the schema already encodes as default='markdown'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 first sentence names a specific resource pair (dividend payment history plus stock-split history), the entity scope ('one stock'), and an included extra (trailing-period summary). This is clearly distinguishable from get_stock_quote and get_historical_prices, which cover live yield and price series respectively.

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?

It enumerates concrete use cases (dividend-income analysis, payment dates and amounts, dividend growth, past split events) and explicitly routes two adjacent needs to named alternatives: get_stock_quote for current/forward yield and get_historical_prices for price history. Both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else signal are present.

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