search_docs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return type (formatted string list) but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data scope limitations (e.g., result count, pagination).

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 short (two lines) and front-loaded with key information. However, the return type line could be integrated more efficiently, but overall it's concise.

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 absence of schema parameter descriptions and no usage guidelines, the description leaves gaps. It adequately explains the return format but does not cover parameter semantics or usage context. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but not fully.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. For example, it doesn't clarify 'user_google_email' (which user's drive?) or the format/role of 'query'. The optional 'page_size' is mentioned in schema but not elaborated.

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 it searches for Google Docs by name using Drive API with mimeType filter. It specifies the resource and action distinctly, differentiating from sibling tools like list_docs_in_folder or search_drive_files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_docs_in_folder or search_drive_files. The description does not include contextual cues or exclusion criteria.

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