search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the scope 'en todo Google Drive' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other safety signals.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a clean Args list. Front-loaded and free of fluff, 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance (alternatives) and behavioral transparency (permissions, read-only nature). It is minimally viable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section compensates effectively. It explains 'query' as text to search in the name and gives a range hint for 'page_size' (1-100), adding practical meaning beyond the raw schema types and default.

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 'Busca' (search) and identifies the resource as 'archivos por nombre en todo Google Drive' (files by name across all Google Drive). This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or get_file_info.

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 clearly communicates the tool's scope (search by name across Drive), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where it should not be used, such as when listing all files is more appropriate.

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