Search the Web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces them by framing the tool as a pure retrieval operation. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing 'returns formatted results with no AI synthesis,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait that distinguishes it from perplexity_ask, plus capability disclosures for recency filters and domain restrictions.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: core function first, then use cases, then behavioral trait, then sibling routing. Each sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns, what it does not do) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has rich supporting context: an output schema, annotations covering safety (read-only, open-world, non-destructive), and 100% parameter documentation. The description covers purpose, use cases, output format, and one sibling alternative. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance for the other two siblings (perplexity_research, perplexity_reason), which leaves an agent slightly under-informed about the full tool landscape.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters in detail (including the '-' prefix exclusion syntax and enum values). The description only adds marginal confirmation that recency filters and domain restrictions exist, which maps to search_recency_filter and search_domain_filter but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web and return a ranked list of results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates.' It enumerates concrete use cases (finding specific URLs, checking recent news, verifying facts, discovering sources) and explicitly distinguishes itself from perplexity_ask, so an agent can separate it from siblings immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use context via 'Best for: finding specific URLs, checking recent news, verifying facts, discovering sources' and names one alternative ('For AI-generated answers with citations, use perplexity_ask instead'). However, it never addresses when perplexity_research or perplexity_reason would be preferable, leaving part of the sibling routing to inference.

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