chat_perplexity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a genuinely non-obvious trait — statefulness ('guarda contexto (chat_id)') — which affects call sequencing (reuse the ID to continue). But it stays silent on the external Perplexity service, cost/latency implications, and return behavior, which matter for an unannotated conversational tool.

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?

Two sentences and roughly 25 words: purpose and statefulness are front-loaded, the usage rule follows, and there is zero filler. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of 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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters well, so the description doesn't need to restate them. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the agent will receive back and why this exists alongside deep_research; 'Pepe' is invoked without explaining the persona. Adequate for a basic call, short of full guidance.

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 coverage is 100% and the `message` parameter is already documented in detail (CPQO fields, follow-up rule). The description's short-turn advice mostly restates the schema's follow-up note ('puede acotarse si CONTEXT ya está en el historial'), so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the input schema. Baseline 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 opens with 'Hilo conversacional con Pepe' — a specific resource (a named conversational entity) plus the key trait 'guarda contexto (chat_id)' — making the purpose unmistakable next to the search/retrieval siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or exclude any sibling like deep_research, though the chat-vs-search boundary is evident.

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?

It gives a concrete message-format rule ('Usa CPQO en `message` o turnos cortos si el hilo ya cargó el brief') that helps an agent invoke correctly. But it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over alternatives — notably deep_research, a sibling that could plausibly overlap with a research-focused chat persona.

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