pinecone_describe_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the fields returned and that the description is server-side, implying a read-only inspection, but does not state that the operation is non-mutating, whether it can fail for missing indexes, or any rate/permission constraints. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to enumerate return values in prose.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon list of returned content. No filler, every phrase earns its place.

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 the tool is a single-parameter read with an existing output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it. The only missing pieces are parameter semantics and explicit routing against siblings such as describe_index_stats.

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 0% for the single 'index' parameter, so the description should clarify whether this is a name, ID, or qualified identifier. It does not. Baseline 3 for a one-parameter tool with an output schema, but it leaves a real gap.

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 (describe) and resource (index), and enumerates what is returned: schema, deployment, status, host. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like pinecone_describe_index_stats (metrics) or pinecone_index_capabilities (feature availability).

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?

Implied usage from the verb 'describe' – an agent knows this is the lookup tool for one index – but there is no explicit when-to-use versus pinecone_list_indexes or pinecone_describe_index_stats, and no statement of prerequisites.

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