pplx_claude_sonnet

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether the tool reads or modifies data, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The cost note is the only behavioral insight, but it does not compensate for the lack of basic action description.

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?

While the description is very short, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise, missing core functional details and parameter semantics.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, output schema, numerous siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's operation, return values, or how it differs from similar tools, failing to provide a complete picture for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters ('query' and 'source_focus'). The agent receives no hints about what these parameters do, leaving the schema to bear the full burden. This is a critical gap.

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 identifies the tool as 'Claude Sonnet 4.6 — Anthropic's fast model' but does not explicitly state that the tool performs a search query. The mention 'COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY' implies a search action, but the core purpose (verb+resource) is missing, making it vague compared to siblings like pplx_ask or pplx_query.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The cost indication (1 PRO SEARCH QUERY) hints at a constraint, but there is no context-explaining preference for this model over pplx_claude_opus or pplx_claude_sonnet_think.

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