pine_get_binding

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it promises a binding hash in the response and discloses a fail-closed behavior on ambiguity. That failure mode is not derivable from any structured field. It does not explain what the hash is used for downstream (e.g., passing to a save call).

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned data before the guardrail clause. Minor deduction because 'Ambiguous facades fail closed' is unexplained jargon that an agent must interpret.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the return payload (ID/version, state, source, hash), which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is how the binding hash is consumed by subsequent pine_* tools.

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 target_id and expected_layout_id are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about either parameter and does not reconcile why a read-only tool documents target_id as 'required for changes'.

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?

States a specific verb plus a precise resource set: native Pine script ID/version, draft/modified state, full visible source, and a binding hash. The 'authoritative native' framing hints at differentiation from get_source/get_saved_source siblings, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Authoritative' and 'ambiguous facades fail closed' implicitly tell an agent to prefer this over facade-based reads when trust matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among pine_get_source, pine_get_saved_source, or pine_get_versions.

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