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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds authentication context ('no authentication') and result-shape detail (paged list with id, title, category, industry, price, demo url, total, cursor). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though 'read-only, no side effects' partially restates the hints.

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?

Content-rich and front-loaded: purpose, when-to-use, exclusion, follow-up, and behavior in a compact block. Minor redundancy in restating read-only/no-side-effects alongside the annotations, but no sentence is wasted.

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 zero-required-param search tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, alternatives, follow-up, filters implied by the query field, and behavioral profile. Nothing material is missing.

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% and an output schema exists, so parameters and returns are already documented structurally. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema carries (e.g. it never explains cursor usage or limit ranges), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — searching the AETumi COMMERCIAL CATALOG of licensable 3D web assets — and enumerates the asset types covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_experiences (Labs reference experiences, not for sale), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when: user wants something to 'BUY, LICENSE AND SHIP'. Gives an explicit when-not with the alternative named: do not use for Labs reference experiences, use find_experiences instead. Also names the natural follow-up tool (get_3d_web_asset) for expanding a result.

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