search_polyhaven_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns a list of matching assets with basic information,' which gives some sense of the output but not deeper behavior like whether it is read-only, has rate limits, or requires authentication. Since an output schema exists, the return-format statement adds minimal value, and no other behavioral context is provided.

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 compact and well-structured: a leading one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list and a brief return statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool.

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 tool's low complexity (two optional parameters, an output schema exists, and no nested objects), the description covers the core elements: purpose, parameters, and return type. It does not include usage guidance or deeper behavioral details, but these are partially covered by other dimensions. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining asset_type with allowed values ('hdris, textures, models, all') and categories as 'Optional comma-separated list of categories.' This adds meaning beyond the raw types and defaults, though it could elaborate on category value formats or whether 'all' is the default.

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 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (Polyhaven assets), and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_polyhaven_asset (download) and get_polyhaven_categories (categories). The parameter list further clarifies asset types and categories, making the purpose unambiguous.

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—this tool finds assets on Polyhaven—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like download_polyhaven_asset or search_sketchfab_models. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, only the natural implication from the verb 'search.' This fits a 'implied usage' level rather than explicit guidance.

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