drive search files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that trashed files are excluded by default and that raw `query` is unvalidated Drive syntax while structured filters are safer, but it says nothing about ordering, result caps, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause adds information about filtering or exclusion defaults. No filler, though the parenthesis example slightly interrupts the flow of the filter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for an 8-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the omission of pagination (page_token/max_results) and ordering (order_by) guidance is a real gap an agent would hit on multi-page result sets.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains intent for query, name_contains, mime_type, folder_id, and the trashed default. It leaves order_by, page_token, and max_results entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and gives no format detail for mime_type or folder ID values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the user's Drive"), which clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like drive_get_file and drive_read_file_text. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the boundary, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"query is optional raw Drive search syntax... name_contains, mime_type and folder_id are safe structured filters" implicitly steers the agent toward structured filters over raw query strings. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of fetching a known file ID via a sibling, and no pagination guidance across pages.

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