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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral context about the scope (drive.file exposes nothing else, never their entire Drive) and mentions pagination. It doesn't describe return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile well and the scope explanation is genuinely valuable beyond the annotations.

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 a compact paragraph with every sentence earning its place. It front-loads the purpose and scope, then gives concrete usage instructions, then confirms read-only. No filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the scope limitation, how to filter, pagination, and the primary use case (finding file ids). It also aligns with the openWorldHint by noting the picker flow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds value by grouping filters ('query... folderId... onlyFolders:true') and explicitly mentions pageToken for pagination, which clarifies usage patterns beyond individual schema descriptions. It doesn't add info on pageSize or includeTrashed, but the schema already covers those, and the description's guidance on filtering and pagination is a meaningful enhancement.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('Google Drive files & folders Hermoso can reach'), and explicitly defines the scope (files it created plus user-picked files via drive.file scope, never the entire Drive). It also names a key use case ('find the id of a file the user picked'), which distinguishes it from generic list tools and from siblings like list_onedrive_files.

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 how to use the tool with concrete filtering options ('Filter by query... folderId... onlyFolders:true') and pagination ('Paginate with pageToken'). It implies when to use it by explaining the scope limitation and the use case for finding a file id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives (e.g., list_onedrive_files) or when not to use it, though the scope discussion implicitly covers that.

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