get_analysis_overlay_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('without changing the chart'), explains internal validation behavior (resolving by USER pine_id, verifying Pine version source and input contract), and enumerates what the response contains: analysis metadata, expiry, current-price relations, risk/reward references, and drawing integrity. It also discloses the limitation about level states vs. historical touch order.

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 efficiently sized at three sentences and front-loads the most important fact ('Read... without changing the chart'). Some phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy, such as 'context-bound input contract,' but every sentence contributes substantive information and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid inventory of returned content and read-only behavior. It could be more complete by addressing the optional chart_index parameter and potential validation failure modes, but for a status-read tool the core selection and invocation context is well covered.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It does add meaning by mentioning that the study is resolved by USER pine_id and that expected_symbol and expected_timeframe form a 'context-bound input contract,' which helps clarify their role as validation constraints. However, it does not explain chart_index at all, and the individual parameter semantics remain mostly implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current Bushido Analysis Overlay state without changing the chart.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read-only status inspection and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings like apply_analysis_overlay and ensure_analysis_overlay. It also names the key entity (Bushido Analysis Overlay) and the kind of data returned.

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 a clear usage context: it is for reading current overlay state without mutation, and it explicitly warns that level states do not reflect historical touch order, directing the agent to 'a future outcome tool' instead. This is a useful exclusion, though no sibling tool is named by name, so routing is slightly less explicit than it could be.

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