The more posts I write, the more natal charts I inspect, the less I'm inclined to attach clearly defined labels on the zodiac signs when part of a natal chart. Sign labels, keywords handed down through the centuries, are available in astrology textbooks, but real life characteristics of any zodiac sign are almost always modified. Other than for a tiny group of people born with all personal planets and ascendant in a single zodiac sign, text book descriptions are going to seem from a touch off course to miles adrift in a sea of confusion. Pisces, like its neighbour Aquarius, has two potential rulers: Pisces' traditional ruler being Jupiter, with modern astrologers holding that Neptune rules Pisces.
Neptunian traits (e.g. love of the sea, potentially addictive personality, highly creative, dreamy, foggy, links to film/photography etc.) do not, automatically, apply to any person born with a strong emphasis of Pisces in their natal chart. If Neptune is linked by aspect to personal planet(s) there's more likelihood of recognising at least some Neptunian traits in that person. Jupiter's keywords, for example: expansion, lucky breaks, generosity, optimism, philosophy, links to religion or legal matters are not often mentioned as textbook Pisces attributes, yet the Age of Pisces, where we are now, and will be for some time to come, is defined in the West by religion: the rise of Christianity.
Due in part to Pisces' astrological element Water, mutable mode, and being the 12th and last sign in the zodiac circle, the sign itself is thought to represent: gentleness, sensitivity, an emotional nature, empathy, possible psychic ability, prone to shyness. These are descriptions for the essence of the sign, but once part of a natal mix the essence become modified by the chart's configuration and other planetary positions. So, writing more words about the essence itself, which hardly ever exists in pure form in real life, doesn't seem useful.
What I'm trying to say, in convoluted fashion, is that although every zodiac sign is said to have an intrinsic meaning, as a zodiac sign, it's unwise to assume that the sign's intrinsic meaning will manifest clearly enough in a human being to be discernible by others.