pplx_deep_research_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it returns immediately with current status, supports polling, and results remain retrievable for 7 days. This enriches understanding without contradicting the 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 four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, immediate return, polling behavior, and 7-day retention. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it does, when to call, and how long results persist. It does not detail the exact return format, but 'full report' and 'current status' give reasonable guidance. With sibling context, this is sufficiently complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (job_id, wait_seconds, strip_thinking). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking a deep research job and retrieving the full report once finished. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'retrieve') and identifies the resource ('deep research job'), distinguishing it from siblings like pplx_deep_research_start (starts jobs) and pplx_deep_research_list (lists jobs).

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 provides clear usage context: it is for checking a job started via pplx_deep_research_start, and explicitly advises 'If the job is still running, call again.' It also mentions the 7-day retention period. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to list alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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