drive_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by specifying the search criteria (by filename) and the return format (list of dicts with id, name, mime_type). However, it does not disclose search behavior details like case sensitivity, partial matching, or pagination, which would be useful.

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 two sentences plus a return type note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and includes examples, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basics but leaves ambiguity about search semantics (e.g., exact match vs substring, case sensitivity) and the meaning of 'visible to Hermes'. For a search tool, more detail on behavior would enhance completeness.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only limit has a description), the description compensates by clarifying that the query parameter is for filename search, and gives examples for mime_type. The limit parameter is already described in the schema, so no extra credit. The description adds meaningful context 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 clearly states the tool searches Drive files by filename, with optional MIME type filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_list (which likely lists all files) and drive_get (retrieves a specific file). The verb 'search' and resource 'Drive files' are specific, and the return structure is provided.

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 finding files by name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like drive_list or drive_get. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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