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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it signals a read-only search operation and specifies the returned data (file counts, total bytes, starter scene URLs) and the free-only scope. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but those are minor for this type of tool.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the search scope, the second states the output, and the third routes to the relevant sibling. The most important information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The description compensates for the absence of an output schema by listing key return fields, and the schema fully documents all four parameters. It lacks explicit filter-combination semantics and pagination details, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the text/theme/style dimensions but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The q/query alias is already documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a precise resource ('cohesive free GLB game kits') and names the search dimensions: text, theme, and style. It also distinguishes itself from get_pack by explicitly routing individual model retrieval to that sibling.

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 states when to use search_packs (searching kits by text, theme, or style) and explicitly names get_pack as the alternative when individual models or loader snippets are needed. This gives the agent a clear decision rule.

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