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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the sorting hierarchy ('same kit first, then shared palette, then compatible real-world scale'), the diversification behavior ('spread across classes'), and the return format ('ready preview URL'). This is substantial, though it does not mention read-only status or error behavior, which would make it fully transparent.

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 compact yet information-dense. It uses two sentences: one to explain the matching logic and criteria, and one to state the use case and return value. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 query tool with a schema and no output schema, the description explains the core return value (assets + preview URL) and the matching behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It could elaborate on the structure of the returned asset list or error conditions, but the given context covers the essential information.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for free, limit, and max_triangles (60% coverage), while id and min_triangles lack descriptions. The description adds context about the matching criteria, which indirectly informs parameters like id (the 'one asset') and limit (diversity control), but it does not explicitly detail parameter meanings or provide examples. Given moderate schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('return') and clearly identifies the resource ('assets that BELONG IN A SCENE WITH IT'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_asset and search_assets by focusing on scene compatibility rather than general search or retrieval, and explicitly states its purpose as 'turn a single pick into a scene'.

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 phrase 'Use this to turn a single pick into a scene' provides a clear, actionable use case, and the description implies when it is appropriate compared to searching for assets generally. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the full exclusion guidance that would merit a 5.

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