search_polyhaven_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read/search nature and return content ('list of matching assets with basic information'), and it adds specialized user_prompt persistence behavior that the schema does not convey. It omits operational details like network dependencies, result limits, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of parameters. The user_prompt guidance is longer than the other bullets, but every sentence serves a clear guardrail purpose and is not filler, so the structure still earns its place.

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 three-parameter, zero-required search tool with an output schema, the description plus schema gives enough to call correctly: allowed asset types, category filtering format, prompt semantics, and the nature of the result. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance against siblings like get_polyhaven_categories, but that gap is already captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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, and it does fully cover all three parameters: asset_type enumerates its allowed values, categories defines its format, and user_prompt receives detailed behavioral semantics. This goes well beyond the bare schema and prevents invocation errors.

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 ('Search for assets on Polyhaven'), and the filtering clause distinguishes it from sibling download/category tools like download_polyhaven_asset and get_polyhaven_categories. The first sentence alone tells an agent exactly what the tool does.

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 a search workflow ('Returns a list of matching assets') but never explicitly says when to choose this over get_polyhaven_categories, download_polyhaven_asset, or search_sketchfab_models. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routes, so usage is inferred from tool name and siblings rather than explicit guidance.

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