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

With no readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only,' disclosing that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. It also reveals the auth prerequisite ('connect in Account first'), adding useful behavioral context beyond the sparse 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core function and safety profile without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 self-documenting parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the scope, safety, and prerequisite. Minor gaps like result shape are not critical because the action is a straightforward search.

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 the parameters (page, limit, query) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about parameter formats or edge cases, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the caller's connected Google Drive'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling files_driveread by emphasizing search over direct file retrieval.

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 gives clear context: it searches the caller's connected Google Drive, not general web or other file sources. It also states a prerequisite ('connect in Account first'), which is practical guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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