Search Drive

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

The description discloses parallel account search, merged result ordering, and partial failure semantics — behavior not captured in the annotations. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining what happens when one account fails.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, default behavior, failure handling, and parameter selection guidance are packed into a compact, front-loaded description. No fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the key return behavior (merged list, ordering, failure reporting) and explains all important parameter interactions. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning: 'query' matches filename and contents, 'drive_query' uses raw syntax and is ANDed with 'query', and 'max_results' is per account when searching all. These details are not inferable from the schema alone.

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 'Find files in Google Drive', a specific verb and resource, then immediately explains the multi-account search behavior that sets it apart from sibling tools like drive_list or drive_read. The distinction between plain query and raw drive_query further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 conditional guidance: omit 'account' to search all connected drives, use 'query' for plain words, and use 'drive_query' only when raw Drive syntax is required. It does not explicitly compare against sibling search tools like search_emails, but the usage context within this tool is unambiguous.

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