get_drive_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the load: 'Get' plus a pure read-shaped return list make the read-only, side-effect-free nature unambiguous. Because there is no output schema, the explicit field list (drive_id, drive_type, owner_name, quota_used, quota_total, quota_remaining, web_url) adds real behavioral value. It doesn't mention auth-failure behavior or latency, keeping it at 4.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the smoke-test cue. The return-field list is compact and earns its place because no output schema exists to convey it.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and return shape — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule and there is nothing further to document. The description correctly implies a no-argument call rather than leaving the agent guessing.

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 and resource ('Get basic OneDrive info') and enumerates exactly what is returned (quota, owner, drive id). It also distinguishes itself from the file/folder siblings (search_onedrive, list_folder, get_item_metadata, download_file) by being the account-level metadata call.

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 a concrete use case — 'useful as a smoke test that authentication is working' — which tells the agent when to reach for it (first call / auth validation) rather than the content-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly state when *not* to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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