Get an item from any drive

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the structured data: it requires the Files.Read.All scope and that a user can consent without an administrator. It stops short of describing errors, throttling, or permission-denied behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability (any drive, metadata) before the sourcing details. Dense but each clause carries information; minor compression could still be gained in the list of sibling sources.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return matches files_get_item, and it covers scope and auth consent. Complete enough for a two-parameter read tool, with only edge-case/error behavior left undocumented.

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%, and the schema already documents driveId and itemId with the same remoteDriveId/remoteItemId examples. The description reinforces the multi-drive semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (reads metadata of one file or folder) and a differentiated scope (ANY drive the user can reach, not just their own OneDrive). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling files_get_item by saying it returns the same detail, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete context for when this tool is the right one: resolving remoteDriveId/remoteItemId stubs from files_list_shared and files_list_recent, and driveId/itemId from teams_get_channel_files_folder. It implies files_get_item handles the own-drive case but never states the exclusion or 'when not to use' explicitly.

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