Dividends, bonuses and splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the exact content shape (ex/record dates, upcoming flagged, 12-month paid dividend history, trailing yield). It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or behavior when a symbol has no actions, but for a read tool this is solid added context.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the covered action types, with no filler. It is slightly run-on with the trailing parenthetical and appended clauses, but every phrase carries content.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the fields and sections returned (amounts, dates, upcoming flags, dividend history, yield). Combined with a fully documented 2-param schema and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs, though missing sibling disambiguation keeps it short of a 5.

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% and both parameters are documented there (symbol format, limit semantics with default and max). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the temporal hints 'upcoming' and 'last 12 months', so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (corporate actions for a symbol) and enumerates the action types covered: dividends with amount per share, bonus issues, splits, rights, buybacks. An agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_announcements, which could plausibly cover the same events.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope of the returned data (corporate actions for a given symbol). There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer this over get_announcements or get_financials, and no prerequisites such as an exchange requirement beyond the schema's 'NSE symbol' note.

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