search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a one-pass research tool (not exhaustive), and it quantifies how `detail_level` affects output depth. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a non-destructive search tool the core behavioral trait is well disclosed.

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 concise sentences: it front-loads the purpose, explains the key parameter, and presents the alternative tool. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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 simple search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, scoping, parameter semantics, and sibling routing. The only notable omission is the relationship with `chat_perplexity`, which could clarify when a conversational interface is preferred, but this is minor given the schema covers the remaining details.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by mapping `detail_level` values to OBJECTIVES counts and referencing the pepe-research-brief skill. This goes beyond the schema's simple enum descriptions and helps the agent choose a parameter value correctly.

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 performs single-pass web research via Perplexity, giving a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `deep_research` by describing the latter as the alternative for extensive multi-source reports.

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 provides concrete guidance on choosing `detail_level` based on desired OBJECTIVES count (brief ≈1–2, normal ≈3–5, detailed ≈6–8). It also explicitly instructs the agent to use `deep_research` when a broader multi-source report is needed, making the selection criteria clear.

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