pplx_auth_request_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that a 6-digit code is sent and the return is a status message. It doesn't mention rate limits or code expiration, but for a simple auth request, this is adequate.

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 concise, with a clear two-paragraph structure: purpose and next step, then Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it (including next step), parameter explanation, and return value. No gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args section that explains 'email: Your Perplexity account email address', adding meaning beyond the bare type. The parameter is well-described.

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 requests a verification code for Perplexity authentication and sends it to the provided email. It is a specific verb ('request') on a specific resource ('verification code'), and its role is distinct from siblings like pplx_auth_complete and pplx_auth_status.

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 explicitly instructs to check email inbox and use pplx_auth_complete with the code, providing a clear next step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with pplx_auth_status or mention when to avoid this tool, though the context makes its purpose clear.

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