search_polyhaven_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions optional filtering and that it returns a list with basic information, but doesn't cover pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'basic information' entails. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately brief with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the core function. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for parameters.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. For a search tool in this environment, it's minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 explains 'asset_type' values (hdris, textures, models, all) and 'categories' as optional comma-separated list, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify category format or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'assets on Polyhaven', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_polyhaven_asset' by focusing on search rather than download, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_sketchfab_models' 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'search_sketchfab_models' or when to use 'get_polyhaven_categories' first for filtering. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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