search_polyhaven_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that it returns a list of matching assets, but it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose potential rate limits, result count limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted parameter list, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids readability.

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 description covers the essential aspects—purpose, parameters, and return type—but it is vague about what 'basic information' in the results includes. It also does not reference related tools (e.g., get_polyhaven_categories for category values or download_polyhaven_asset for obtaining full assets), which would make the context more complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_type with allowed values, categories as a comma-separated list, and user_prompt as telemetry. This is helpful, though it could be improved by providing examples of valid category values.

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's verb ('Search') and resource ('assets on Polyhaven'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models that target a different platform.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's purpose—searching Polyhaven assets—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusionary cases.

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