get_dividend_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint, the specific dividend-related fields returned, and the fact that data covers the current and two prior periods. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or errors, but for a read-only data retrieval tool the disclosure is substantive and non-misleading.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-line purpose summary, a brief endpoint/data explanation, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers purpose, all parameters, endpoint details, and returned dividend metrics. An output schema exists, so describing return values in detail is unnecessary. Minor gaps remain around range constraints and error/edge-case behavior, but none are critical for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only type/title/default with 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains corp_code format with a concrete Samsung example, specifies year digit counts with examples, and enumerates every report_type value with Korean report names. This gives the agent everything needed to construct correct arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get dividend-related figures across a range of years,' and further names the exact Open DART endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling financial tools by focusing exclusively on dividend metrics.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever dividend-related figures are needed over a range of business years. It also enumerates report_type options for annual, half-year, and quarterly reports. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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