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 that it returns id, name, type, owner, and last-modified time. It also explains the scope (own Drive vs. shared drives via include_shared_drives). It does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, or potential performance impacts of full-text search, but overall provides sufficient transparency for a search tool.

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, well-structured paragraph. It begins with the core purpose, followed by filtering details, default behavior, parameter guidance, return format, and chaining to another tool. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 input schema complexity (5 parameters, all optional) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description provides all necessary context. It covers filtering, default behavior, return fields, valid file types, and chaining. The only minor gap is an explicit mention of max_results, but its default and purpose are inferable.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains the purpose of name, content, file_type, and include_shared_drives parameters, and lists valid file_type values ('doc, sheet, slides, pdf, folder'). It covers max_results implicitly by mentioning 'most recently modified files' and default behavior, but does not explicitly describe the parameter. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool searches Google Drive files and shared drives, listing matches with filtering options. It distinguishes itself from siblings: drive_list_shared_drives focuses on listing shared drives, drive_read_file reads content using the returned id, and gmail tools are unrelated. The verb 'Search' plus resource 'Google Drive' and scope 'your files and shared drives' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: for searching by file name, content, or type, and mentions default behavior (most recently modified files). It also directs using the id with drive_read_file for reading contents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though siblings like drive_list_shared_drives are implicitly distinguished.

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