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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that filtering by type and search by name are possible, but these are parameter behaviors already present in the schema. No hidden side effects or constraints (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that states the primary purpose first and then the optional filters. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details—highly concise and front-loaded.

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 list tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and its key capabilities. The required companyId is documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. Minor gaps like default max_results are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description's mention of filtering by type and searching by name directly maps to the file_type and query parameters, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists files in the user's Google Drive and specifies the available filters (type and name). This distinguishes it from other list_* tools that target different resources (e.g., list_shopify_files), 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 when to use the tool (listing Drive files) but does not explicitly address alternatives or exclusions. For a simple read-only list operation, this is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance compared to a more complex tool.

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