pplx_gpt55_thinking

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions cost and subscription, not the tool's behavior (e.g., returns text, supports streaming, thinking process). Output schema exists but is not described.

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 brief (two sentences) but lacks essential information. While it is front-loaded with the model name, it omits crucial details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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 large set of sibling tools, this description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, or how it differs from others, despite having an output schema that could mitigate some gaps.

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 does not mention any of the three parameters (query, source_focus, conversation_id), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct 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 names the model and mentions extended thinking, implying it is for querying the GPT-5.5 Thinking model. However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'query', 'ask'), leaving the action somewhat vague.

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?

Provides cost and subscription requirements but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pplx_gpt55 or other model tools. No selection criteria are given.

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