list_dividends

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description confirms it retrieves historical data but doesn't add details about rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'historical' means (time range, completeness). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 maximally concise with just four words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides basic purpose but leaves significant gaps. For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context, but the presence of structured data elsewhere prevents a lower score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description carries full burden but provides no parameter information. 'Get historical cash dividends' doesn't explain what parameters like 'ticker', 'ex_dividend_date', 'frequency', 'dividend_type', 'limit', or 'params' mean or how they affect results. The description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 'Get historical cash dividends' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical cash dividends'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'list_splits' or 'list_stock_financials' that might also provide historical financial data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other 'list_' tools for financial data), there's no indication of when this specific dividend tool is appropriate versus when to use other data retrieval tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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