pinecone_fetch_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are unranked and explains include_fields' '*' behavior versus omission, but omits read/write safety, pagination/limit behavior, authentication, and filter semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a focused field-inclusion note. There is little waste, though 'for a document fetch' is slightly redundant.

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?

The tool has six parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, and an output schema. While return values are covered by the output schema, the input contract is barely described, leaving an agent without needed details on filter format, limit semantics, or required index/namespace usage.

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 six parameters. The description clarifies the special '*' value and default behavior for include_fields, but leaves index, namespace, ids, limit, and filter undocumented, so it only partially compensates.

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 (Fetch) and resource (records), plus the retrieval modes (by id or filter) and a key differentiator (without ranking them). It stops short of naming the sibling search tool, so an agent must infer the contrast, but the scope is clear.

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 phrase 'without ranking them' implies the scenario where ranking is unnecessary, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives (e.g., pinecone_search_records), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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