pplx_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY per call'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites like authentication or side effects beyond quota consumption. The cost warning is valuable, but more detail on authorization would improve transparency.

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 well-structured: a terse header with cost, then usage guidance, then parameter docs. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with complex model selection.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers most aspects. It explains parameter choices and usage context. The omission of conversation_id is a minor completeness issue. Nonetheless, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains 4 of 5 parameters (query, model, thinking, source_focus) with model lists and source focus options. It misses conversation_id entirely, which is a notable gap. The provided parameter descriptions add significant meaning beyond the enum-based schema.

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 it queries Perplexity AI with explicit model selection and mentions the cost. It distinguishes itself from sibling pplx_smart_query by stating when to prefer the other, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer pplx_smart_query for automatic quota-aware routing. Use this only when you need a specific model or thinking mode.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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