list_dividends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what data is retrieved ('historical cash dividends') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the data returns. For a data retrieval tool with 6 parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just 3 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is structurally optimal for its length.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage), this description is completely inadequate. A tool with multiple filtering parameters and no structured documentation needs a description that explains parameter usage, return format, and behavioral constraints. The current description provides none of this essential context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. The schema shows parameters like 'dividend_type', 'ex_dividend_date', 'frequency', 'limit', 'params', and 'ticker', but the description doesn't mention any of them, explain their purposes, or provide examples of valid values. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to use the tool effectively.

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 'Get historical cash dividends' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical cash dividends'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_splits' or 'list_ticker_news', but the specificity of 'cash dividends' provides reasonable differentiation within this financial data context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_ticker_details', 'list_splits', or other financial data tools), there's no indication of when historical cash dividends are the appropriate data to retrieve versus other financial metrics or data types.

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