drive_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral detail: `query` searches both name and text, while `raw_q` uses Drive syntax. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or what happens when both parameters are supplied.

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 compact and well-structured: one clear main statement followed by focused parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant text.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, and the description covers only two of them. The required `profile` parameter is completely undocumented, and `max_results` behavior is absent, leaving important gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains `query` and `raw_q` well, including a concrete raw syntax example, but it omits the required `profile` parameter and `max_results` entirely, leaving those meanings to be inferred.

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 opens with 'Busca arquivos' (searches files), a specific verb and resource, and further details query vs raw_q behavior. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gmail_search and drive_read_file by indicating it searches 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool to search files, and it gives guidance on choosing between `query` and `raw_q` based on search style. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer drive_search over siblings like drive_read_file or gmail_search.

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