pplx_claude_opus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only covers cost and subscription requirements, omitting details like return format, conversation continuity (hinted by conversation_id parameter), or any side effects. The behavioral profile is incomplete.

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 very short (two brief parts), but it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is not well-structured; the key action is missing. Adequate conciseness but poor completeness.

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?

With 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, an output schema present but unmentioned, and a notable cost/subscription context, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for correct tool usage.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no meaning for 'query', 'source_focus', or 'conversation_id'. The agent receives no guidance on parameter values or their significance.

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 model as 'Claude Opus 4.8 — Anthropic's most advanced reasoning model' and mentions cost and subscription, implying it is a query tool. However, it does not explicitly state the tool's action (e.g., 'Ask a question to Claude Opus'). The model name and capabilities provide sufficient clarity for a knowledgeable agent.

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 mentions 'COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY' and 'Requires Max subscription', providing context on constraints. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like pplx_claude_sonnet or pplx_claude_opus_think, nor does it offer exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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