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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context: coverage levels none|poor|ok and tier free|pro with the note that pro GLB downloads require a plan. It does not fully describe response shape or rate/auth behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core search purpose and important caveats. There is no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives only high-level return information (coverage and tier). It is minimally adequate but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions or output structure.

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 0% and the description does not explain the five parameters. It hints at asset categories and low-poly filtering but leaves query, limit, legs, max_triangles, and class enum semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: "Search remixable low-poly 3D assets," and names the asset classes. It clearly separates search from retrieval siblings like get_asset, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "Search" and the asset-domain framing, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_asset, get_variant, or report_need. The only behavioral guidance is to report none/poor coverage honestly.

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