Robinhood Get Dividends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that this is a read-only list operation and describes the returned fields, which is helpful. But it does not mention pagination, time range, empty-result behavior, sorting, or any authentication-dependent behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the return format.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, this description is reasonably complete: it states the scope ('all') and the return structure. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'instrument details' means precisely and how empty or paginated results behave, but these are not critical for basic 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, and the 100% schema coverage means no undocumented parameters need compensation.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Get all dividend payments received.' It also names the returned fields (amount, payable date, record date, instrument details), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like earnings, news, or ratings. Even without naming a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implied by the tool name and 'dividend payments received,' so an agent can infer when to select it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative might be more appropriate for related data such as earnings or fundamentals.

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