search-drive-items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scope ('within one drive') and does not describe pagination or truncation behavior, though those details are present in the schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and scope with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a relatively simple search tool and every word contributes to understanding.

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 rich schema that fully documents the required and optional parameters, along with read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit guidance for choosing this tool over search-my-drive or search-m365, but the essential operation and scope are clearly stated. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's clarity about what is searched.

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%, with q, driveId, cursor, and maxItems all meaningfully explained in the schema. The description's word 'keyword' merely echoes the q parameter and adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('files'), and a scope ('within one drive (document library)'). This clearly conveys a file-search operation and distinguishes it from related siblings such as search-my-drive or search-m365 by scope, though it does not name those alternatives. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a solid idea of the operation.

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 phrase 'within one drive' implies this tool is for searching a specific drive identified by driveId, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not reference close siblings like search-my-drive or search-m365, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from the parameter schema and tool names.

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