polyhaven_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that results are sorted by download count, which is useful, but it does not disclose that this is a network/online search, whether it is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or how results are returned beyond the output schema. The agent gets little sense of side effects or operational constraints.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action, target resource, filter dimensions, and sorting behavior. Every part earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, four parameters, and no enums, this description is too thin. It does not explain asset_type options, how limit behaves, what categories values are valid, or how this search relates to polyhaven_categories and polyhaven_download. An agent could use defaults, but it would be guessing for non-default use cases.

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 for all four parameters. It maps 'by category' to the categories parameter and 'by keyword' to the query parameter, but it does not explain asset_type (default 'hdris') or limit at all, nor does it describe acceptable values or how categories should be formatted. This is only partial compensation for an otherwise undocumented schema.

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 names a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('Poly Haven assets'), and the filtering dimensions (category/keyword) plus the sort order (by download count). It is clearly distinct from siblings like polyhaven_download, polyhaven_categories, and search_local_assets, so an agent can tell when this tool is the right one.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to find Poly Haven assets by keyword or category. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer polyhaven_categories, polyhaven_download, or search_local_assets instead, leaving some routing to inference.

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