get_dividend_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('this year's', 'current holdings') and output fields (expected and received payouts, dates, amounts, yields). However, it does not disclose data freshness, per-account vs. aggregate behavior, or potential edge cases, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's purpose, scope, output content, and a use case. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is returned (dates, amounts, yields), the scope (this year, current holdings), and the intended use. Minor omissions (e.g., whether results are combined across accounts or per-account) prevent a 5.

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 fully describes the only parameter (accountIds as 'Depot ID(s) to include') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dividend calendar for current holdings'), then elaborates with expected and received payouts, dates, amounts, and yields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_dividend_history (historical) and get_portfolio_yield (yield only) and includes a concrete use case: 'when are my next dividend payments?'

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 a clear use case ('Use this for when are my next dividend payments?') which tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions' component for a 5.

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