Search 3D Texel libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: catalog size (7,000+), the shape of returned records, and the pricing convention ('price in credits (0 = free)'), which is context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loading the search scope and return shape is good, but the asset list is redundant — HDRIs, decals, and atlases are each named twice across the two catalog enumerations, padding a description that could be two tighter sentences.

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 five params, no required fields, and no output schema, the description usefully states the returned fields (id, title, type, license, price, thumbnail, URL) so the agent knows what comes back. The missing piece is any guidance on pagination behavior across the 7,000+ catalog.

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 60%, with enums on both 'type' and 'source' already documenting their values. The description reinforces 'free CC0' for handmade and the credit pricing model, but adds no syntax, paging guidance, or semantics for 'page'/'per_page' beyond what the schema provides, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Search 7,000+ assets') and enumerates the asset categories covered, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_asset or list_my_library, so the scope is clear but the boundary against neighbors is not.

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 rather than stated: the query examples ('mossy stone wall', 'sunset skybox', 'walk cycle') signal a keyword-search workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_asset for a known id or list_my_library for owned assets, and no exclusions.

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