pplx_gpt55_thinking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost and subscription requirement, which is useful. However, it omits other critical behaviors such as rate limits, statelessness, output format details (despite output schema existing), or whether the tool has side effects beyond consuming credits.

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 brief (two sentences) but at the expense of missing critical details like parameter guidance and usage context. It is front-loaded with key identity and cost info, but overall it is underestimed rather than optimally concise.

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 lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. While an output schema exists, the absence of parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency makes the tool definition inadequate for confident selection and invocation.

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 no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain the 'query' parameter (e.g., what constitutes a valid query) nor the 'source_focus' parameter (its purpose or allowed values). This leaves the agent without sufficient semantic understanding of the inputs.

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 GPT-5.5 Thinking, a model with extended thinking, and distinguishes it by noting a cost of 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY and a Max subscription requirement. However, it does not explicitly state the tool's primary function (e.g., reasoning, research) beyond 'thinking', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 alternatives. The mention of 'extended thinking' implies it is for complex reasoning, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools like pplx_gpt55, which likely offers faster or cheaper responses.

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