gdrive_search

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 discloses the search scope (file names, Shared Drives) and default max_results, but does not mention side effects, permissions, read-only nature, pagination, or query syntax. This is minimal for an unannotated 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact args listing. No wasted words, though it could add usage guidance without bloating.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema and both parameters documented in the description, this is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it vs. list tools and omits behavioral details that are not covered elsewhere.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: query is defined as 'Search term to find in file names' and max_results as 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 20)', adding real meaning beyond the raw 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for files in Google Drive by name' and adds the useful scope 'includes Shared Drives.' It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like gdrive_list_folder or onedrive_search, but it is specific enough to be distinguished from listing/browsing tools.

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 by saying 'by name' but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as gdrive_list_folder or gdrive_list_shared_drives. No explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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