pplx_deep_research_start

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

Annotation contradiction: The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'Start a ... job' and 'Returns a job_id', implying a state-changing operation (creating an async job). This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint. The description does add useful timing info (2-20 minutes) and polling instruction, but the contradiction forces a score of 1 per rules.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, then follow-up and caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 (async job, polling, duration, cost), the description covers all essential operational context: immediate return, polling with job_id, typical duration, and cost/overkill warning. It also distinguishes from normal web search. The contradictory annotation is a separate issue, but the description itself is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, score is 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?

The description explicitly states 'Start a Perplexity Sonar Deep Research job' with the specific verb 'start' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'After calling this, poll pplx_deep_research_check with the returned job_id' and implies listing via 'start' vs 'list'.

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 explicit use cases: 'exhaustive multi-source investigation: literature reviews, market and competitor analysis, regulatory landscapes.' It also tells when NOT to use it: 'For quick factual lookups this is overkill and expensive - use a normal web search instead.' This is clear guidance with alternatives.

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