Search Smithsonian 3D assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the search criteria, which is expected given the annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the purpose and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description should cover all major filter options. It only covers a subset, leaving out cursor-based pagination, boolean flags, and file type variants. The output schema helps, but the description is still too sparse for effective tool selection.

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%, placing burden on the description to explain parameters. The description only mentions four categories (text, type, quality, owning unit) but not the other five parameters (limit, cursor, dracoCompressed, gltfOrientationCompliant, and implicit enumeration details). This is insufficient compensation.

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 Smithsonian Open Access 3D models and file variants, with specific filter criteria (text, type, quality, owning unit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search other sources (e.g., fab, polyhaven, sketchfab).

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 implies usage by specifying the source (Smithsonian) and search criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit context for choosing among sibling search tools.

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