search_polyhaven_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns a list of matching assets with basic information,' which is vague and omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are ordered/paginated. The lack of side-effect clarity is a gap.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence explaining the tool's purpose followed by a two-line parameter breakdown. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to scan. No extraneous content exists.

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 having only two simple parameters, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not detail the return format (e.g., which fields like 'name', 'url', 'thumbnail' are included). Without this, an agent cannot reliably parse the results. Additionally, no mention of pagination, limits, or error handling is made. The description is incomplete for practical use.

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?

Since the input schema provides 0% description coverage, the description compensates by listing both parameters and adding key semantics: asset_type receives explicit allowed values (hdris, textures, models, all) beyond the schema's 'string' type, and categories is clarified as a comma-separated filter. This enables correct parameter usage, though the valid category values are not enumerated (likely obtainable via sibling tool).

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,' specifying the verb (search), resource (assets on Polyhaven), and the ability to filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models, but it could be more precise about whether it searches all public assets or only those with specific criteria.

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 mentions optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_polyhaven_categories or download_polyhaven_asset. There is no advice on prerequisites (e.g., needing categories beforehand) or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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