get_dividend_yield_ranking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the dividend priority order (NxFDivAnn > FDivAnn > DivAnn), the Kabutan-equivalent default behavior, the effect of include_trailing, and the cache-only/no-API-call plan note. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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-structured with clear sections and bullet-like argument definitions. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, behavior, plan support, and parameters. Despite its length, it remains focused and scannable, earning each line.

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 8 parameters, no required fields, and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, parameter details, and supported plans. It provides complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is listed with its purpose, default, and allowed values (e.g., n: 1–100, market enum, date format). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'High dividend yield stock ranking (高配当利回りランキング)'. It specifies the resource (stocks) and the action (get ranking), and differentiates from siblings by pointing to get_stock_briefing for single-stock yield. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for 高配当, 配当利回り, dividend yield ranking, 高利回り銘柄.' and 'For single-stock yield see get_stock_briefing instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative, exceeding the minimum requirement.

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