Search Past Assessments in Google Drive

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 key behaviors: recursive search, use of a configured folder, and no-query fallback. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a search operation these are not critical, and the description adds context beyond what the name/schema imply.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded, examples integrated naturally, and a clear pointer to the next step. Every sentence contributes value—no redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, how to query, default behavior, and how to inspect results. The output schema provides return structure, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'query' parameter meaning by providing examples and noting the no-query behavior, making the parameter's purpose and usage clearer than the schema alone.

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 ('recursively search') and clearly identifies the resource ('configured Google Drive folder') and scope ('past quizzes, tests, midterms, exams, practice material, and solutions'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_drive_file by explicitly directing users to it for inspecting results.

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 concrete usage examples ('CS 135 quiz', 'MATH 136 midterm') and explains behavior with no query ('returns assessment-like files'). It tells users to use get_drive_file for inspection, but does not explicitly contrast with other alternatives or describe scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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