get_dividends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Normalized' hints at adjusted/standardized data but is never explained, and there is no disclosure of date coverage, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements for a financial data endpoint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The only cost is that the unexplained qualifier 'normalized' occupies space that could have clarified behavior.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape, date-range behavior, and any mention of the closely related upcoming-dividends sibling, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'symbol' fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 verb (get) and resource (dividend history) scoped to a stock symbol. The word 'history' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_upcoming_dividends, but no sibling is named explicitly and the scope of 'history' is undefined.

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: an agent can guess this retrieves past dividend records vs. the forward-looking get_upcoming_dividends or the tax-oriented get_capital_gains. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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