asset.polypizza_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Risk: read' phrase adds nothing beyond the structured data. However, the description does contribute 'maturity: L1' and the session-policy requirement, which are not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists, but the added behavioral context is thin — nothing about result pagination, rate limits, or search semantics.

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 brief with zero verbosity, so it scores adequately on size alone. However, its short length is spent on low-value content: restating the command name and duplicating the readOnly annotation. It is concise but not information-dense.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But the description omits the tool's core purpose, the meaning of its search parameters, and any relationship to the sibling download tool. For a search command with seven parameters, this leaves an agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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 only 43%, and the three user-facing parameters (query, licence, limit) have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. With low coverage, the description was required to compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The harness parameters (_requestId, _authorization, _transactionId) are documented in the schema, yet the functional search parameters remain entirely unexplained.

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 is essentially a tautology: it identifies the tool as a 'PartMe Blender Harness command asset.polypizza_search' but never states that it searches the Poly Pizza asset library. The agent must infer purpose from the tool name alone. It does not differentiate this from its close sibling blender_asset_polypizza_download beyond the name difference.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_asset_polypizza_download, blender_asset_fetch_generated, or blender_asset_fetch_url. The only contextual sentence ('Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply') states preconditions but says nothing about the search-then-download workflow or when this command is the right choice.

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