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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds behavioral context by explaining that the request is geo-targeted from a chosen country/state and that the response includes cited sources and mentioned brands. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, and includes a practical usage note. Every sentence carries useful guidance; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the essential return value: the answer with cited sources and mentioned brands/sources. It is reasonably complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool, though it could mention the optional include flags or geo-targeting constraints more directly.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, including prompt, country, state, and include flags, so the baseline is 3. The description only lightly reinforces the country/state geo-targeting idea; it does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Submit'), a specific resource (Perplexity), and a clear outcome: return the answer with cited sources. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling scrape tools by naming Perplexity explicitly and situating the intended use case.

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 description gives a clear use case: 'Use this to see how Perplexity answers a prompt and which brands/sources it mentions.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it against direct alternatives like scrape_chatgpt or scrape_copilot.

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