get_stock_fhps_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function, omitting details like data source, update frequency, rate limits, or what happens on errors. This leaves the agent with minimal information about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks front-loaded key information and is too brief to cover important aspects like usage or behavior. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, resulting in an average score.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain typical use cases, output characteristics, or how the output schema relates to the data. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to provide context, leaving gaps.

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 input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 it retrieves dividend distribution data for a specified stock, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('dividend distribution situation'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_hist_data' or 'get_stock_basic_info', which might also relate to stock data, missing a chance for differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools. An agent would need to infer usage purely from the tool name and purpose, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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