search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details parameters and return values but does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or permissions. The tool likely performs a read-only search, but this is not stated.

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 well-organized into Args and Returns sections, with each parameter explained concisely. It could be slightly more terse, especially the model-per-mode lists, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all parameters and describes the return structure. It lacks details about error handling or pagination, but it sufficiently informs usage for typical queries.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining modes, model dependencies, sources, answer_only behavior, language, and incognito mode, adding significant meaning beyond the bare 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 searches Perplexity AI with a given query. It lists all parameters but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like follow_up or get_thread, which could cause ambiguity when deciding which tool to use.

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 implies usage for performing searches but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling tools handle follow-ups and threads, so there is some implicit differentiation.

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