get_dividends

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

While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true), the description adds critical behavioral constraints regarding the input parameter 'period.' It explicitly lists the acceptable enumeration values (1y, 5y, 10y, max), which is essential domain-specific context beyond the basic schema definition.

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 definition is concise and highly structured, using an argument list format to deliver information efficiently. While slightly mechanical due to the Arg format, every sentence adds necessary instruction or scope.

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 description is complete for selection and invocation. It specifies the resource, lists the necessary inputs, details the constraints on those inputs, and confirms the types of data that will be returned, which is sufficient even with the presence of an output schema.

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?

Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description performs exceptionally well. It defines the semantic meaning of both 'ticker' and 'period,' and crucially, it lists the accepted values for 'period' (1y, 5y, 10y, max), completely compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 is extremely clear, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the specific resource: 'dividend payment history and current metrics.' It cleanly separates its function from general stock data, enabling easy differentiation from related sibling tools like get_stock_price.

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 focuses purely on *what* the tool does, not *when* to use it. It provides no guidance on when an agent should choose this tool versus, for example, get_company_info or get_financial_summary, lacking necessary context for decision making.

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