The complexity of SAT relates to the number of arguments to the Boolean function (i.e. the "distinct literals" in the expression), not the number of terms in a particular normal form.
The complexity of an algorithm which solves SAT is related to the size of the input that you give it. So if the input is the Unicode string
(x1∨x2∨¬x3)∧(x1¬∨x2¬∨x4)∧(x2∨x3∨x5), then the size of that is the number of Unicode codepoints (or bytes or bits used to encode those codepoints).
The subject of SAT is the function, not the representation of the function. The complexity class (i.e. the complexity of any solver which is optimal for its computer) is the same whether functions are written as product-of-sums or a sum-of-products. This complexity varies with the number of arguments to the function.
The input to a SAT solver is the representation of the function. Your example is in the product-of-sums normal form, which is a common way to express SAT problems. This is not a coincidence — SAT is solved mindlessly if you instead give it a sum-of-products expression! The brute-force method of solving SAT is to enumerate the sum-of-products, where each term either contradicts itself (b ¬b) or represents a satisfied piece of the function's domain. This simple approach doesn't trivialize SAT because going from one normal form to the other causes a combinatorial explosion. The size of the domain of a function of $n$ Boolean arguments is $2^n$.
Thus, feeding a gigantic problem description into a simple algorithm may have the same computational (and space) complexity as feeding a simple but equivalent description into a sophisticated algorithm. For brevity, we tend to prefer to imagine the description to be simple and the algorithm to be complicated.