Dividend payments

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral details: newest-first ordering, pagination via nextCursor, and the important caveat that it reports actual paid amounts, not forecast yield.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main purpose leads, followed by usage guidance, pagination note, and a clarifying caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only list endpoint with optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect: returned fields, ordering, pagination, and a semantic disambiguation. No significant gaps remain.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-level semantics; it only mentions passing nextCursor, which the schema already explains. Baseline 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 immediately states the tool returns dividends paid into the account, listing specific fields (instrument, amount, amount per share) and ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like t212_list_transactions or t212_get_account_cash.

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 phrase 'Use this for dividend income questions' gives explicit context for when to choose this tool. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the boundaries clear enough.

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