search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs a web search and is useful for certain purposes, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds context without redundancy. However, the second sentence could be slightly more precise, preventing a perfect score.

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 an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains the basic purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or error handling, which are important for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 parameters (query, detail_level, stream) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'desired detail level' and implying the query's purpose, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 performs a 'web search using Perplexity AI' with a specific query and detail level, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'chat_perplexity' or 'extract_url_content'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation' for information-finding tasks, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidelines by stating it's 'useful for general knowledge questions, finding information, or getting different perspectives', which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings, such as when to prefer 'chat_perplexity' for conversational queries.

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