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 simply says 'Search Poly Haven assets' with no mention of whether it is a read-only operation, whether it requires network access, what it returns, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a complete failure to disclose behavior beyond the act of searching.

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 short sentence, which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information beyond the resource name. For a tool with three parameters and no other documentation, this brevity is a deficiency, not a strength, as it omits essential guidance.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), but the description does not explain what the search returns or how results are structured. With three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete for an agent to call this correctly and interpret the output. It fails to address any of the contextual needs that the structured data does not cover.

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 by explaining the meaning of the parameters (query, asset_type, categories). It does not mention any of them, leaving agents to guess what values are valid or how they affect the search. The description adds no semantic value over the bare parameter names.

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 states a verb ('Search') and a resource ('Poly Haven assets'), identifying the subject matter and loosely distinguishing it from the sibling 'search_sketchfab_models'. However, it lacks any detail about the scope, result format, or how it relates to other Poly Haven tools like 'download_polyhaven_asset', making it only minimally clear. It is not a tautology, but it is barely more than a label.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_sketchfab_models, get_polyhaven_categories, or download_polyhaven_asset. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over siblings, or any exclusion criteria. An agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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