Dividends & rights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that empty lists mean Edge lists none for this company, and that each record includes an edge_no linking to the announcement disclosure. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 a single focused paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent detail—field lists, edge_no linkage, empty-list interpretation—adds value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, readOnly, openWorld false), the description covers all relevant aspects: what data is returned, how to link to the disclosure, and how to interpret empty results. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's output.

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 schema has a single parameter 'symbol' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'a company's' and does not explain the symbol format, validation, or any additional semantics, leaving the parameter under-specified and requiring the agent to infer what 'symbol' means from the context.

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 'Get a company's declared dividends and stock rights offers,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote or get_disclosure. It further elaborates on the fields included for dividends and rights, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it retrieves dividend and rights data. It also provides a clear usage tip: pass the returned edge_no to get_disclosure for the full notice. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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