Search Poly Haven assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that results include explicit Poly Haven attribution, a useful behavioral detail for licensing. However, it does not describe pagination, sorting behavior, or error handling beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and includes an additional detail about attribution without verbosity.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description lacks explanation of how to use parameters like cursor, limit, and categories. It does not cover result structure, pagination, or typical usage patterns for a search tool.

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%, but the description provides no parameter information beyond hinting at the 'type' parameter (HDRIs, textures, models). Six parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 CC0 HDRIs, textures, and models from Poly Haven. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (Poly Haven) and content type (CC0), and adds a unique detail about attribution in results.

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 alternatives like fab_search_assets or ambientcg_search_assets. The description does not provide context for selection based on asset source or licensing needs.

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