Ask Perplexity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that — a rate/call-frequency caution and batching advice — but says nothing about latency, session behavior, or result limits. It adds some value over the annotations but not rich disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the operational caveat, with no filler. It is efficient, though the purpose half is just a restatement of the obvious name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does note that it returns answer text, which is the essential return contract. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations, the safety and shape are covered. However, for a tool with a sibling family and a session-continuation parameter, it does not fully explain return structure or when continuation via backend_uuid applies.

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 sits at 50%: backend_uuid is documented in the schema, while query is not. The description only restates that query is a string, adding no format, length, or example meaning beyond the schema. With coverage near the midpoint, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the mechanics clearly — it takes a query string and returns answer text — which is a specific input/output contract. However, it never differentiates perplexity_ask from its three siblings (perplexity_research, perplexity_reason, perplexity_search); it only cites perplexity_search as an alternative batching target, not as a contrasting purpose. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would choose 'ask' over 'search' or 'reason'.

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?

It gives real operational guidance: avoid frequent calls and consolidate multiple sub-questions into one query or one perplexity_search call. That is a useful when-to-batch rule. But it offers no explicit criteria for choosing this tool over the sibling research/reason/search tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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