Dividends, capital changes, notices and major holders of a stock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: the data source is Agah only and dividend values are Rial per share tied to a fiscal year. It omits how many notices 'recent' covers and whether results are paginated or ordered.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the source/unit caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by enumerating the four result categories plus the unit convention for dividends. What remains thin is scope: the recency window for notices and any result-size limits are unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax or format detail for 'stock' beyond the schema's 'Symbol, company name part, or ISIN'. The mention of major shareholders loosely corresponds to the 'holders' flag but does not explain its effect on the response shape. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (list) and enumerates the exact resource set: cash dividend history, capital increases, exchange notices, and major shareholders. That is concrete and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as br_announcements (notices) or br_stock, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The only constraint given ('Source: Agah only') is a data-provenance note rather than a routing rule, so an agent must infer on its own when to call this versus br_announcements or br_stock.

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