get_dividend_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (getting history) with no mention of destructive effects. Missing details on rate limits, error handling, or auth requirements, but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 (three lines) with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, and parameter details follow in a clean docstring 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?

Tool has an output schema (context signal true), so description need not explain return value. Parameter coverage is adequate. With siblings listed, the tool's role is clear. Minor gap: no mention of default year behavior or error cases.

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 0%, so description adds vital meaning: 'symbol' is a PSX ticker and 'years' is how many years of history with default 5. This goes beyond the schema's bare types.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical dividend payouts for a symbol, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'historical dividend payouts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_upcoming_dividends (future dividends) and get_quote (current price).

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 basic context: symbol is a PSX ticker and years defaults to 5. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_upcoming_dividends for future payouts) or any prerequisites.

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