data_get_pine_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly identifies the operation as reading (non-mutating) and describes the output as 'text and price pairs'. However, it does not disclose edge cases like empty results, behavior when study_filter matches nothing, or whether it requires a chart with loaded indicators. The behavior is adequately but not richly described.

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 action and resource, and includes a practical usage hint. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with three simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states purpose, return format, and how to target specific indicators. It could mention what happens when no labels are found or clarify multi-study behavior, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (verbose, max_labels, study_filter), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions study_filter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource: 'text labels drawn by Pine Script indicators (label.new)'. It also states the return format ('text and price pairs'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_get_pine_lines and data_get_pine_boxes.

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 usage hint: 'Use study_filter to target a specific indicator.' This implies the tool can read from all indicators when no filter is applied. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as data_get_pine_lines or data_get_indicator, so while context is present, exclusions or alternative selection guidance are missing.

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