drive_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation—it does not disclose specifics like return format, pagination behavior, or permission implications. Since annotations lower the bar, a score of 3 is appropriate for this minimal addition.

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 single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose and query flexibility without any redundant content. It is well-structured and easy to parse, earning a top score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description is reasonably complete for a basic search use case. It explains the query flexibility and leaves parameter details to the schema. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could have been slightly more explicit about return values, though this is not a critical gap for a search tool.

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%, meaning every parameter (query, corpus, pageSize, pageToken, sharedWithMe) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Searches for files and folders in Google Drive.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_findFolder (which targets folders specifically) and gmail_search (which targets email). The added detail about query types (simple term, URL, full Drive query string) further clarifies its scope.

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 provides some context on query construction ('Query can be a simple term, a URL, or a full Drive query string') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_findFolder or drive_downloadFile. Usage guidance is implied rather than clearly delineated, so the agent must infer the preferred tool from the purpose.

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