drive_search_files

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining accepted query forms, the JSON return shape, and the pagination contract via next_page_token. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the query modes and return format following efficiently. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition is present.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers query modes, return keys, and pagination behavior. Combined with the detailed schema and safety annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The nested DriveSearchInput schema already thoroughly documents query, page_size, page_token, and include_trashed with examples and constraints. The description adds the high-level plain-text-vs-raw-query distinction, but that is also stated in the schema, so the description provides little parameter meaning beyond structured fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search for files and folders in Google Drive.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling content-retrieval and mutation tools such as drive_read_file_content, drive_upload_file, and drive_trash_file.

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 concrete usage context: plain text is matched against file names, while raw Drive query strings support advanced filtering by MIME type, folder, date, etc. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended selection context is clear enough.

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