drive_search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the default search scope (My Drive + all Shared Drives), the conversion of shorthand type: queries to mimeType queries, and content: using fullText. It also mentions raw API query syntax. This goes beyond basic behavior, though it omits details like result fields or pagination limits beyond the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides useful detail without fluff. It packs substantial information about scope, shorthand, and raw syntax into a compact paragraph.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is quite complete. It covers the main query semantics and scoping, but doesn't explicitly mention pagination behavior or the fields returned. Since there is no output schema, these are minor gaps, making 4 appropriate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for the 'query' parameter by explaining shorthand syntax and fullText behavior, and for 'driveId' by clarifying the default scope. This raises the score above baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for files in Google Drive.' It specifies both the action (search) and the resource (files), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_list_files by emphasizing query-based search across multiple scopes. The detailed syntax options reinforce the distinct purpose.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: searching across My Drive and all Shared Drives by default, and how to restrict via driveId. It also points to drive_list_shared_drives for ID discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with drive_list_files or explain when to use one over the other, which would make it a 5.

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