get_dividend_history

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 reveals aggregation behavior (per-year totals, per-month breakdown for the current year) and distinguishes gross vs. net amounts. This goes beyond a generic 'get dividends' statement, but it omits details like return format or how cutoffDate interacts with the year grouping, so it is not a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a relevant usage example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return structure (per-year gross/net, with a per-month breakdown for the current year). It also provides enough context to differentiate from sibling tools. Minor gaps remain about sort order and handling of multiple accounts, but the description is reasonably complete for a simple dividend history 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (accountIds and cutoffDate). It mentions 'current year' but that is not parameter-specific, so no extra value is added.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get dividend income per year (gross and net)', with an additional detail about per-month breakdown for the current year. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dividend_calendar (upcoming dividends) and get_portfolio_yield (percentage yield) by focusing on historical income amounts.

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 concrete use case: 'Use this for how much dividend income did I get in 2024?' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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