data_get_pine_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read ('Read'), and adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Returns deduplicated price levels per study.' It does not mention what happens when no matching study or lines exist, and it omits output-shape details, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes the tool's purpose and input, the second explains the return behavior and filtering. No filler or redundancy.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read, the deduplication behavior, and how to target a study. It just stops short of describing the returned shape or empty-result behavior, but the schema covers parameter details and the operation is simple enough not to require more.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces study_filter with 'Use study_filter to target a specific indicator,' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; hence baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Read horizontal price levels drawn by Pine Script indicators (line.new).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling data_get_pine_labels/boxes/tables by focusing on horizontal price levels and line.new, and additionally states the deduplicated per-study output.

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 clear context for when to use it: to read horizontal Pine line levels, with 'Use study_filter to target a specific indicator' as explicit parameter guidance. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like data_get_pine_labels or data_get_study_values, so it misses the full 'avoid when...' guidance.

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