Ask Perplexity

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it returns 'text response with numbered citations' and supports filtering by recency, domain, and context size. No contradictions. Slight room for improvement: could mention it's stateless or that citations are always numbered.

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 tightly packed sentences plus a concise enumeration of filtering options. Purpose is front-loaded, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage, alternatives, return format, and filtering. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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% with good descriptions for each parameter (e.g., enum values for search_recency_filter). The description mentions filtering capabilities but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Answer a question'), the resource ('web-grounded AI (Sonar Pro model)'), and concrete use cases (quick factual questions, summaries, explanations, general Q&A). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming alternatives (perplexity_research, perplexity_reason) and their respective strengths.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (best for quick factual questions, summaries, etc.) and when not to (in-depth research → use perplexity_research; step-by-step reasoning → use perplexity_reason). It also highlights speed and cost ('fastest and cheapest option'), providing complete guidance.

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