search_pinecone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: the delay due to embedding model loading, query language translation, strict grounding in indexed documents, and the automatic fallback to add_document_to_pinecone. This far exceeds minimal expectations.

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?

The description is well-structured with an IMPORTANT callout, a concise purpose statement, a rules list, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is longer than necessary but every sentence contributes operational guidance without waste.

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's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, error handling, language translation, answer scope, ambiguity handling, and query modification. Output schema exists, so return details need no elaboration.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the Args section explains all three parameters. It clarifies fhir_document_id as 'the same as the FHIR ID of the document,' which adds valuable meaning. query and top_k are adequately described, though query is somewhat generic.

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?

The description states a specific action: 'Searches the Pinecone vector index for information related to the given document by FHIR DocumentReference ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document_to_pinecone and request_document_reference_resource.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user requests information from the documents, notes, etc.' and provides detailed rules including prerequisites (prepare fhir_document_id), fallback (trigger add_document_to_pinecone on error), and handling of unrelated queries.

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