ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'real-time web-grounded answers and citations', which gives some behavioral context, but it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or output format (e.g., how citations are presented). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no extraneous information. The key purpose and triggers are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and triggers. However, it could be slightly more complete by describing the return format (e.g., structure of citations) since there is no output schema to rely on.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds trigger phrases and mentions 'web-grounded', which aligns with the 'search' parameter, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'ask' and the resource 'Perplexity' with real-time web-grounded answers and citations. It also provides trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'deep_research', making it less than perfect.

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 trigger phrases for when to use this tool, such as 'use perplexity' or 'ask perplexity'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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