pplx_claude_opus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool consumes a PRO SEARCH QUERY and requires a Max subscription. This adds transparency beyond the schema, though it omits details about idempotency or side effects.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a billing note. It is front-loaded with the model name and key traits, with no wasted words.

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 having many sibling tools and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not describe the return value format, how to use the parameters, or how this tool differs from similar ones beyond the model name. It leaves the agent with significant gaps.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the 'query' or 'source_focus' parameters at all. For a tool with two parameters, the description should compensate but fails to add any parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as using Claude Opus 4.7, a specific reasoning model from Anthropic. It differentiates from siblings by naming the model and noting the cost and subscription requirement, making the purpose clear even though it doesn't explicitly say 'ask a question'.

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 cost and subscription prerequisites ('COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY. Requires Max subscription'), which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this model over alternatives like pplx_claude_sonnet or pplx_gpt55.

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