drive_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of Drive query syntax, which hints at metadata-based searching (e.g., 'name contains', 'mimeType'), but it does not explicitly state limitations (e.g., no full-text content search) or permissions requirements. It adds some useful behavioral context but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by concise examples. It contains no wasted words and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key usage detail (query syntax).

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspect (query syntax) and does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance vs alternatives and does not mention the max_results parameter, leaving slight incompleteness for an agent.

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?

The description significantly clarifies the 'query' parameter by providing syntax examples, which is crucial given the 0% schema description coverage. However, it completely ignores 'max_results', leaving its meaning and usage to be inferred from the schema's default value. Thus, it partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Search Google Drive files', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_list_folder (which lists folder contents) and drive_read_file (which reads a specific file) by focusing on searching with query syntax. The examples of query syntax further clarify its purpose.

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 implies usage for searching files via Drive query syntax, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like drive_list_folder or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. There are no exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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