Search the Web

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context: returns formatted results with 'no AI synthesis' (raw output) and supports recency/domain filters. While it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, the annotation coverage lowers the bar, and the description adds meaningful value.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with the core action, a 'Best for' list, and an alternative pointer. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler text.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers main use cases, differentiates from a sibling, and notes key capabilities. It could also mention perplexity_research/reason for completeness, but that's not essential for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'recency filters and domain restrictions,' which echoes the schema but adds no new syntax or constraint details. Parameters are already fully documented in the input schema.

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's action and resource: 'Search the web and return a ranked list of results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates.' It also distinguishes from sibling perplexity_ask by explicitly noting 'no AI synthesis' and directing AI-answer needs to perplexity_ask.

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 an explicit 'Best for' list (finding specific URLs, checking recent news, verifying facts, discovering sources) and an explicit alternative: 'For AI-generated answers with citations, use perplexity_ask instead.' This clearly guides when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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