get_company_dividend

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents the return envelope, nested dividend fields, and common failure modes such as invalid symbols, missing dividend records, and temporary source unavailability. It stops short of specifying currency units, date formats, or explicitly confirming read-only behavior.

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 docstring-style organization with Args, Returns, and Raises sections makes the definition easy to parse. Every major section adds value, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema. The opening sentence is slightly redundant with the following explanation, but overall the length is justified.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, expected inputs, return structure, field meanings, and error conditions. The main gaps are explicit sibling differentiation and some formatting/unit details, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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%, but the single parameter 'symbol' is clearly defined as a stock code and illustrated with '2330' and '0050'. This is adequate for a one-parameter tool, though it does not specify constraints like numeric-only formats or whether ETF codes are supported beyond the example.

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's action and resource: retrieving a company's dividend distribution history, including cash dividends, stock dividends, ex-dividend dates, and payment dates. It is easily distinguishable from most price/income/financial-statement siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_dividend_rights_schedule.

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 through the description and concrete examples, such as get_company_dividend("2330"). However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or edge cases like unsupported symbol formats.

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