asset_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description is free to add the operationally important context it does: results carry a 'polyhaven:<id>' spec, size in metres, and entry file, and the '@2k' suffix changes texture resolution (1k default). This is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, then result shape, then the scene-script API in a logical order with zero filler. It is dense and runs long in a single block, and some of the jr_assets API detail arguably belongs with the consuming tools, but every part is actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return contract (id spec, size in metres, entry file) and shows the full search-to-render workflow. An agent has everything needed to search and to use the results 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 coverage is 100%, so the 'kind' and 'query' documentation baseline is 3; the description goes further by showing worked query examples and, more usefully, the '@2k' resolution modifier that governs how the returned id is consumed downstream. It adds real semantics but not per-parameter edge cases.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find free CC0 3D models, PBR textures or HDRIs on Poly Haven by words'. It is plainly distinguishable from the render_* siblings, which produce output rather than locate input assets.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative runtime path: 'to furnish a scene without uploading files; no GPU time', and gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('For product shots of something the user has no model for') with the exact follow-up call to render_preview. When-to-use and the alternative are both spelled out.

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