Advanced Reasoning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it uses the Perplexity Agent API with a medium preset, returns numbered citations, and offers filtering options. No contradiction exists, and the added behavioral details help set expectations.

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 five sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, best-for list, output format, filter capabilities, and sibling alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core verb and stays compact without 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 tool with moderate complexity (4 params, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, use cases, output style (reasoned response with numbered citations), filtering options, and alternative tools, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by naming the medium preset (implying a default search_context_size), listing recency filter options, and framing the filters as search capabilities. This slightly exceeds baseline by connecting parameters to the tool's reasoning workflow.

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 analyzes questions using step-by-step reasoning and web grounding, with a specific list of use cases (math, logic, comparisons, complex arguments). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings perplexity_ask and perplexity_research, making its unique role clear.

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 and direct alternatives: 'For quick factual questions, use perplexity_ask instead. For comprehensive multi-source research, use perplexity_research instead.' This gives 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.