drive_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-world profile. The description adds query syntax examples and return fields, but does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering defaults, or how open-world results should be interpreted. No contradiction with 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: it begins with the core action, gives immediately useful query syntax examples, and states the return fields. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully states return fields, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world aspects. However, it does not clarify whether 'q' is optional, how 'max' and 'orderBy' affect results, whether pagination exists, or how this search relates to sibling file tools. It is adequate for straightforward searches but incomplete for edge cases.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the 'q' parameter with realistic query examples, but it does not add meaning for 'max' or 'orderBy' beyond what the schema already provides via min/max/default and a brief example. Coverage is uneven.

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 specific action ('Find files'), identifies the resource (Drive files), and names the search mechanism ('Drive query syntax') with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_search and drive_get_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?

Usage is implied through the query-syntax examples, which signal this is for searching files rather than fetching by ID or exporting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over drive_get_file, drive_export, or other siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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