perplexity_web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'real-time information' and 'citations,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a web search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. It uses just two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns. While it mentions 'citations,' it doesn't describe the response format, structure, or what 'comprehensive' means in practice. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description provides adequate but incomplete context.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'citations' which relates to the 'return_citations' parameter, but this is already covered in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Search the web using Perplexity AI with real-time information and citations.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('the web'), and key capabilities ('real-time information and citations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'perplexity_quick_search' beyond mentioning 'comprehensive web searches,' leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'for comprehensive web searches that require up-to-date information, research, and source citations.' This gives specific use cases (research, needing citations) and distinguishes it from basic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tool, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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