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 returns a list with basic information but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool, this lack of detail on result format and constraints is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are concise and relevant, with no wasted sentences. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating usage context, but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's complexity (search with filtering), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return value details, error cases, or behavioral traits like result limits, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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?

The description adds some value by explaining 'asset_type' options (hdris, textures, models, all) and that 'categories' is comma-separated, which isn't in the schema (0% coverage). However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap—e.g., it doesn't detail category values or search query parameters, leaving parameters partially undocumented.

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 searches for assets on Polyhaven with filtering, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'assets on Polyhaven'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_sketchfab_models', which searches a different platform, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose between similar search tools.

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 mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before 'download_polyhaven_asset' or how it differs from 'get_polyhaven_categories', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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