Connector: Perplexity search

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

The description frames this as a benign read operation ('Search... Returns cited... answers'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, an implicit conflict with the semantics of 'search'. The description also omits any disclosure of destructive side effects, API/auth requirements, rate limits, or external-network implications, so it cannot reconcile the declared behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. There is minor redundancy between 'Search Perplexity AI' and 'AI-powered web search via Perplexity Sonar', but nothing wasteful overall.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search with no output schema the basic shape is covered, but given the large number of search siblings the description should clarify selection and return characteristics. It also leaves the surprising destructive/non-read-only annotation entirely unaddressed, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning (e.g. what 'limit' counts, whether query syntax matters), so the baseline 3 for schema-doing-the-work applies.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (Perplexity AI / Perplexity Sonar) and states the output type ('cited, up-to-date answers'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the many sibling search tools (navig_web_search, firecrawl_search, connector_cyberaigen_search, recall_search), so an agent must guess why Perplexity specifically.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. In a toolset flooded with search siblings, the absence of any routing advice (e.g. Perplexity for synthesized cited answers vs. firecrawl/navig for raw results) leaves the choice entirely to inference.

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