search_files

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the search capability. Does not disclose whether search is recursive, how results are sorted, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, behavioral details are important but missing.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states primary action, second adds acceptable input formats. No unnecessary words, appropriately front-loaded.

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 description is functional for a basic search tool with two parameters. It doesn't explain output format or pagination fully, but given no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential behavior. Could be more complete but meets minimum needs.

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% with adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema (already mentions plain text and Drive query syntax). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (searches), resource (files and folders in Google Drive), and scope (by name or content). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_folder (lists folder contents) and read_file_content (reads file text).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies searching across Drive, but doesn't contrast with list_folder (for browsing a specific folder) or get_file_metadata (for a single file's info). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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