search_perplexity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-powered search with sources' which gives some context about the nature of results, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, error conditions, or what 'sources' actually means. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists parameters. While efficient, it might be too brief given the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context that would help an agent use this tool effectively among many alternatives.

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 complexity of a search tool with 12 sibling alternatives, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help an agent understand when to choose this tool over others, what the response format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess or trial-and-error to use this tool effectively.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description briefly mentions 'Args: query (string), timeout (int, default 90)' which adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the tool's purpose as 'AI-powered search with sources', which specifies both the action (search) and key characteristics (AI-powered, includes sources). It distinguishes itself from generic search tools by highlighting the AI-powered aspect, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling AI search tools like search_chatgpt or search_gemini.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 12 sibling search tools on the server. It doesn't mention any specific use cases, advantages over alternatives, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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