get_dividend_rights_schedule

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

The description discloses error conditions such as nonexistent symbol, no data available, and data source unavailability, plus explains the return envelope structure (success, data, error, tool). With no annotations provided, this meaningful behavioral context helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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-organized with sections for overview, examples, args, returns, and errors. It is somewhat long but every section provides necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The primary functionality is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the call pattern, the return data fields, and failure scenarios. It does not specify the exact date format or whether the returned data is sorted by date, but these are minor gaps for a schedule-listing tool.

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 only states symbol is a string with default empty. The description adds meaning by explaining its optionality: leaving it empty or omitting it queries all companies, while providing a ticker queries that specific company. Examples with 2330 and 0050 reinforce the expected format. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds.

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 a dividend rights schedule (除權息行事曆) and lists the specific information included: ex-dividend dates, record dates, cash/stock dividends, and payment dates. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_company_dividend and get_taiwan_stock_price, making its purpose 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 examples show calling with no arguments for all companies or with a symbol for a specific company. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_company_dividend, which appears to be the closest sibling, so it lacks an explicit alternative comparison.

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