get_dividend_rights_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what data is retrieved (upcoming/historical schedules with detailed fields) and the filtering behavior with the optional code parameter. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like date ranges, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness that would be important for a financial data 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, detailed explanation, Args, Returns) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be slightly more concise by grouping related fields or using bullet points more efficiently.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but detailed output), the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, parameter behavior, and return format in detail. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to fully document return values, but it still provides a comprehensive overview of what data will be returned, making it sufficiently complete for agent understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'code' has no description in schema), but the description's Args section provides excellent semantic context: explains it's a stock code, that it's optional, and the behavioral difference when provided (filters for specific company) versus when empty (returns all upcoming schedules). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Retrieves') and resources ('ex-dividend and ex-rights schedule for listed stocks'), including the scope of data (upcoming/historical dates, detailed corporate action information). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on dividend/rights schedules rather than other financial data like trading info, company profiles, or governance data.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Essential for dividend investment strategies') and includes usage guidance in the Args section (explaining the optional 'code' parameter behavior). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different types of corporate action data.

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