dividend_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists return values but lacks information on error handling, data coverage (e.g., all historical periods), or any prerequisites. Minimal extra context beyond the output 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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, bullet-style return info, 'Args' section, and examples. No redundancy or fluff.

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 one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the tool's function adequately. It explains what is returned and provides examples. However, missing details like error responses or historical depth slightly reduce completeness.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is described as a stock ticker with examples (ITC, COALINDIA, AAPL, MSFT), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema which has no property description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get historical dividend payments for a stock.' It specifies the returned data (dates, amounts, totals, averages, latest) and differentiates from sibling 'dividend_history_deep' by implying this is the basic version.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dividend_history_deep' or other stock data tools. Examples are given but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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