Ask Perplexity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns text with numbered citations, supports recency/domain filtering, and search context size adjustment. No contradictions; slight gap on rate limits or error behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage, features, and alternatives. It is slightly longer than two sentences but every clause serves a distinct informative purpose, avoiding fluff 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 read-only tool with rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, appropriate usage, alternative tools, key behavioral traits, and configuration options. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering capabilities at a high level but adds no syntax or detailed semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Answer a question') and resource ('web-grounded AI – Perplexity Agent API'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings ('For in-depth multi-source research, use perplexity_research instead. For step-by-step reasoning and analysis, use perplexity_reason instead.'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'Best for' scenarios (quick factual questions, summaries, explanations, general Q&A), the fastest/cheapest option, and directly names alternative tools for other use cases. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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