chat_perplexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time information' and 'maintains conversation history,' but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'interactive' entails. This is insufficient for a tool with web search and chat capabilities.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the main purpose and key features. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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's complexity (web search with chat history), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality but misses important behavioral aspects like limitations or prerequisites, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances), meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'call this tool for interactive, conversational queries' and 'leverages Perplexity's web search capabilities to provide real-time information.' It specifies the verb (call for queries) and resource (Perplexity's web search), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search' or 'extract_url_content'.

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 some usage context: 'for interactive, conversational queries' and 'maintains conversation history,' which implies when to use it (for chat-like interactions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, leaving gaps in guidance.

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