search_polyhaven_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matching assets with basic information and mentions that user_prompt is for telemetry, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, safe to call, or if there are any side effects, rate limits, or additional behavioral quirks that an agent should know.

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 one-sentence purpose statement followed by a concise parameter list. There is no filler or redundancy; every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the return type (list of matching assets with basic information) and parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'basic information' includes or whether pagination/limits apply, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 no descriptions and 0% coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_type lists its allowed values (hdris, textures, models, all), categories is described as 'optional comma-separated list', and user_prompt is clarified as the original prompt for telemetry. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 function: 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Polyhaven assets'), and the parameter list clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_sketchfab_models by explicitly naming the 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 description implies usage context (when you need to search Polyhaven assets) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools. The presence of sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models makes this distinction important, but the description relies on the tool name to convey it.

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