get_dividends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval action ('Get') and specifies the returned data scope, but it does not mention any limitations, response structure, date range behavior, or other operational details. The agent is left with only a minimal sense of what occurs.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or extraneous context. It is an ideal size for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented by the schema, and the description states what the tool returns. However, there is no output schema and no elaboration on the format of the dividend history/summary, time frame, or key fields, so the agent may not know exactly what to expect from the response. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, with the symbol parameter already described as 'Ticker, e.g. NVDA.' The description's phrase 'for a stock' aligns with this but adds no new meaning, syntax, or constraints. The high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description does not go beyond it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'dividend history and dividend summary for a stock.' It is unambiguous and naturally distinct from the sibling tools, none of which concern dividends, even though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is implied only by the tool name and the data it describes, so the agent receives no direct routing information.

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