pinecone_search_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that embedding happens server-side, that reranking is optional and server-side, and that match_terms only applies to sparse indexes on pinecone-sparse-english-v0. However it says nothing about read-only vs mutating semantics, pagination, or how top_k/exclude_expired behave at runtime.

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?

Front-loads the defining constraint in the first sentence, then adds only the non-obvious feature notes. The parenthetical examples earn their space; there is little filler, though the structure is a bit fragmented across short paragraphs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the distinctive inference/rerank/sparse behavior is covered. For an 11-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, though, several required and optional parameters go unexplained, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and partially does: it explains the query (auto-embedded), rerank_model/rerank_fields (with a concrete model example), and match_terms (with a full JSON example and its index-type restriction). It leaves index, namespace, top_k, fields, filter, rerank_top_n, and exclude_expired entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Search an integrated-inference index') and immediately scopes it: Pinecone embeds the query, so this differs from vector-passing search. The restriction to indexes created with pinecone_create_index_for_model further distinguishes it. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling (e.g. pinecone_query_vectors or pinecone_search) it should be chosen over.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only for indexes created with pinecone_create_index_for_model') and conditional usage for reranking and match_terms. It does not name the alternative tool to use when the index was not created that way, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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