Search Drive by name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'find' files/folders, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that, nor does it disclose details like case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, return format, or any potential side effects. This is minimal transparency for a zero-annotation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. Every word is functional, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has only 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the basic search behavior and type restriction, but it does not describe the return format, error conditions, or how the account parameter behaves beyond the schema. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but leaves room for more details.

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 describes 'type' and 'account', but the 'query' parameter (the only required one) has no schema description. The description fills this gap by explaining 'whose name contains the query', which is critical semantics. It also reiterates the 'type' option, adding clarity even though the schema already defines the enum.

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 'Find' with a clear resource 'files/folders' and a precise scope 'whose name contains the query'. It also mentions 'Optionally restrict to folders or documents', which distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_folder or read_doc by clarifying its search-by-name nature.

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 implies usage for name-based search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_folder or read_doc, nor does it mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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