Search ambientCG assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or query syntax, leaving a gap beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose reasonably. However, it is too sparse and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It earns a baseline score for efficiency but lacks depth.

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 that there are five parameters with no schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, which lessens the need to describe return values, but behavioral aspects (e.g., sorting, pagination via cursor) are missing. The description should provide more context for a search tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (sort, type, limit, query, cursor). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making it difficult for an agent to understand parameter usage without inspecting the 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'CC0 materials, HDRIs, models, decals, atlases, brushes, terrains, and other ambientCG assets', and is specific enough to distinguish from sibling search tools for other sources (e.g., Poly Haven, Fab).

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools (e.g., polyhaven_search_assets, fab_search_assets). There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between alternatives.

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