Search Docs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a formatted list (str) and uses Drive API with mimeType filter, which is helpful but does not disclose other traits like pagination or error handling. With annotations covering safety, the description's additional context is moderate.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point. It front-loads the core action. However, it could include parameter descriptions without much extra length. No wasted words.

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's complexity (3 parameters, search functionality) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. Missing parameter semantics, usage context, and examples. While the output schema covers return values, the description does not address how to effectively use the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: user_google_email, query, page_size. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone. No value is added beyond the schema.

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 it searches for Google Docs by name using Drive API with a mimeType filter. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools for other file types (e.g., search_drive_files, search_gmail_messages). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_drive_files which also searches files but without the mimeType restriction.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_drive_files or search_custom. There is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., Drive API access). The description is purely functional.

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