drive_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this is a meta-discovery step that must precede invoking any drive tool, and it signals the breadth of the hidden catalog. It omits return shape/pagination details, but with annotations doing that work a 4 is warranted.

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?

Purpose and call-order are front-loaded, which is good, but the long op enumeration ('search, read, list, upload... delete, trash +26 more; 35 generated ops...') is filler that describes the discovered catalog rather than this tool and risks confusing the agent about scope.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description conceptually explains the return (a catalog of drive tools and op areas) and the required call order, which is the key information an agent needs. The misleading op list is the main residual gap.

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 100% for the single 'query' filter parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description never mentions filtering by keyword, adding no meaning beyond the schema; per the coverage rule, baseline 3 is correct.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource ('lists the catalog and reveals its hidden tools') and the 'drive' scope distinguishes it from gmail_discover, calendar_discover, and the other domain discover tools. The trailing enumeration of downstream ops (upload, delete, trash) muddies what this tool itself does, keeping it short of a clean 5.

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?

'call first, then call the tool by name' gives an explicit usage order and makes clear this is the entry point for the drive domain. It does not, however, mention sibling entry points like discover_all or google_api_call as alternatives, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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