pplx_sonar

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 plan/usage counters, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens when limits are exceeded. Behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the model name, but it is under-specified. While concise in length, it lacks informative content. It earns its place minimally by noting usage constraints, but fails to convey the tool's core purpose.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, how parameters affect behavior, or what the output represents. The reference to plan/usage counters is useful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The parameters query, source_focus, and conversation_id are not mentioned or described in the description text. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema field names and types.

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 only identifies the model as 'Sonar 2 — Perplexity's latest in-house model' but does not specify the tool's action (e.g., search, answer, chat). The name suggests it's a query tool, but the description lacks a verb and resource, making the purpose vague. Among siblings like pplx_query and pplx_ask, no differentiation is provided.

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 plan and usage counters with a reference to pplx_usage, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling models or tools. There is no explicit context about appropriate use cases or when to avoid it.

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