search_polyhaven_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and returns 'a list of matching assets with basic information,' but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what constitutes 'basic information.' For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by separating parameters into bullet points, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'basic information' includes would improve completeness for a search operation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'asset_type' can be 'hdris, textures, models, all' and 'categories' is an 'optional comma-separated list of categories to filter by,' clarifying usage that isn't evident from the schema alone. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like category examples or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('assets on Polyhaven'), and scope ('with optional filtering'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_sketchfab_models', which performs a similar function on a different platform.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention its sibling 'search_sketchfab_models' for 3D models on Sketchfab or other search-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for its use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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