get_hk_dividend_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns dividend data in Markdown table format or error messages, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling specifics, which are important for a data-fetching tool.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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's complexity (simple data retrieval with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and output format. However, it could improve by adding usage guidelines or more behavioral details, especially since annotations are absent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'code' is a Hong Kong stock code with an example ('hk.00700') and 'year' is the year with an example ('2023'), clarifying the parameter formats and usage that the schema alone does not provide.

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 as '获取港股分红信息' (Get Hong Kong stock dividend information), specifying both the action (get) and resource (Hong Kong stock dividend data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dividend_data' by specifying the Hong Kong market focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly targets Hong Kong stocks, it doesn't mention when to choose it over other dividend-related tools like 'get_dividend_data' or market-specific tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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