Describe Index

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds behavior beyond the annotation: it discloses what the response contains (embedding model, fieldMap, status.ready) and that the call is a prerequisite gate for upserts. Missing only edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown index name.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core purpose plus the key follow-up action (check status.ready) are front-loaded. Minor verbosity from quoting the field names, but each sentence carries useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned configuration pieces and the readiness flag, which is enough to invoke and interpret the tool. It stops short of covering failure/not-found behavior or index-name validity, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name and the two analytics-only llm fields. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage — baseline 3.

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 ('Describe the configuration of a Pinecone index') and names the actual payload fields returned (embedding model, fieldMap). It does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling describe-index-stats, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before upsert-records to learn the required field name' and 'Check status.ready ... to confirm the index can accept upserts and queries.' It provides no when-not-to-use or explicit statement about how it differs from describe-index-stats.

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