pplx_claude_sonnet_think

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the cost (1 PRO SEARCH QUERY) but does not disclose safety, side effects, read/write nature, or any other behavioral traits. Agent cannot assess risk or idempotency.

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?

Description is short (two clauses) but wastes the opportunity to include crucial details. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It could easily be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (3 parameters, some optional, with output schema) and many siblings, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage scenarios. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of operational context.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, source_focus, conversation_id). The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide, default behaviors, or parameter relationships.

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?

Description identifies the model as 'Claude Sonnet 5 Thinking' and mentions it costs a PRO SEARCH QUERY, but lacks an action verb (e.g., 'query', 'ask'). It vaguely indicates a reasoning model but does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from similar siblings like pplx_claude_sonnet or pplx_claude_opus_think.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 20 sibling tools offering different models, the description provides no context for selecting this particular model over others.

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