stock_history_dividend_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete data source (Sina Finance) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful but modest given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loads the source and resource before listing parameters. The raw source URL and Sphinx type lines add mild clutter but no sentence is wasteful.

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 3-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description supplies the data source, all three parameter meanings, and the return type, which is enough for an agent to call it. It lacks only guidance on scope/alternatives relative to sibling dividend tools.

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 0% and the schema only supplies raw defaults, so the description carries the burden: it enumerates the indicator choices {"分红", "配股"}, identifies symbol as 股票代码, and gives a date format example ("1994-12-24"). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 states a specific resource (新浪财经 发行与分配 分红配股详情) and points at the exact source URL, so an agent knows this returns dividend/rights-issue records from Sina Finance. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like stock_history_dividend or stock_dividend_cninfo, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for dividend data. The agent must infer context purely from the Chinese title and the tool name.

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