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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: files outside approved folders are invisible, and when `truncated` is true the agent should say the list was cut.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose and scope, then follows with truncation and invocation guidance. 'Read-only' mildly repeats the annotation, but overall every sentence is useful.

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 tool has 6 parameters, low schema description coverage, and a nested `connectionId` object. The description covers visibility and truncation but omits how to use most parameters, especially filtering and result limits, leaving meaningful gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate for 6 lightly documented parameters. It mentions only `agent_name`, leaving `query`, `folderId`, `companyId`, `maxResults`, and `connectionId` without any explanation beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists files in the Google Drive folders approved by the company owner. It also lists the returned fields (name, type, folder, last modified, owner), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as connection_get_connected_file.

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 explains the visibility restriction (only approved folders) but does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings like connection_search_connected_pages or connection_get_connected_file. Usage is implied by the verb 'Lists' rather than explicitly guided.

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