Get Drive File Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope of 'including sharing permissions,' which clarifies the returned metadata. However, it does not add further behavioral context such as whether the operation requires prior authentication (though openWorldHint is true) or how permissions are represented, so it provides only marginal value beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has only two parameters, a thorough output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is largely complete for a straightforward read operation. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that is captured under a separate dimension. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does without needing to describe return values thanks to the output schema.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters (file_id and user_google_email), so the description does not need to add much. It does not explain any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameters interact or any format expectations. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and identifies the resource ('detailed metadata about a Google Drive file including sharing permissions'). It clearly states the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_file_metadata or check_drive_file_public_access, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as get_file_metadata or check_drive_file_public_access, leaving the agent without usage context.

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