data_get_pine_boxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the read-only nature ('Read'), the deduplication behavior, and the return format ({high, low} price zones). It does not cover edge cases like empty results or error conditions, but it provides solid transparency for a simple read 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Read'. It avoids redundancy and every sentence contributes meaningful information: what it reads, what it returns, and how to filter.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, return type, deduplication, and filtering. It does not mention sorting or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for task selection. The sibling context confirms this is part of a family of data_get tools, and the description clearly differentiates the box focus.

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 input schema covers both parameters fully (verbose and study_filter). The description adds a brief note to use study_filter for targeting an indicator, which slightly reinforces the schema's existing description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and it adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the explicit verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'box/zone boundaries drawn by Pine Script indicators (box.new)', making it clear this tool is for reading box objects. It also clarifies the output as deduplicated {high, low} price zones, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_get_pine_lines (lines) and data_get_pine_labels (labels).

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 gives concrete usage context: it is for reading box zones and mentions the study_filter parameter to target a specific indicator. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, which would push it to a 5.

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