get_dividends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and data volume (1,184 records, 102 companies), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, prerequisites, rate limits, or any side effects. Partial transparency is achieved through field listing.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key return fields. The second provides context on data scale. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate-complexity tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, return fields, and data volume. However, it does not explain output format expectations or parameter interactions (e.g., combining year and type). Slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained description.

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?

All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add further semantic detail about parameter usage or relationships, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 retrieves dividend history for NZX companies, listing specific fields returned (ex-date, record date, etc.). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_earnings or get_financials.

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 such as get_earnings or get_financials. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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