search_sketchfab_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns a formatted list of matching models,' which gives basic output information. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'formatted list' entails. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter semantics well and states the return type, but lacks behavioral transparency details (rate limits, auth, errors) and doesn't describe the output format beyond 'formatted list.' For a search tool with filtering options, more context about limitations or result structure would be helpful.

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 the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: query ('Text to search for'), categories ('Optional comma-separated list of categories'), count ('Maximum number of results to return'), and downloadable ('Whether to include only downloadable models'). It adds default values and clarifies optionality. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain category format or valid ranges for count.

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 models on Sketchfab with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('models on Sketchfab'), and scope ('optional filtering'). It distinguishes from most siblings like download_sketchfab_model or get_sketchfab_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_polyhaven_assets beyond the platform name.

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 when to prefer this over search_polyhaven_assets (different platforms) or how it relates to get_sketchfab_model_preview (preview vs. search). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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