search_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cached catalog, that no API key is required, and that the tool never downloads model files. It omits pagination behavior for limit/offset and any rate or catalog-freshness caveats, which keeps it 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the return contract, then the workflow handoff. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers enough: what it returns, that it is keyless and side-effect-free, and how to chain into import_asset. The remaining gap is pagination and result-ordering semantics for limit/offset.

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%, so query, limit, and offset are undocumented structurally. The description compensates only partially by clarifying that the query matches English tags; limit and offset (pagination semantics, max values, ordering) are left entirely unstated.

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 (Search), a specific resource (CC0 Poly Haven models), the matching key (English tags), and the return payload (credited sources and thumbnails). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling import_asset, which it names explicitly.

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 follow-up workflow: choose a result and call import_asset with source={provider: polyhaven, id: returned_id}. It also clarifies the boundary that search never downloads files. It does not, however, cover when to pick this over sibling discovery tools like inspect_library or get_art_reference.

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