gws.drive.search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return fields (file ID, name, MIME type, modified time, size, owners, web link) and notes the use of Drive query syntax, which is not covered by annotations. This adds meaningful information about what the operation does and returns.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently lists return fields and next steps. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with a query syntax and an output schema absent, the description covers the key aspects: scope, syntax, return fields, and downstream usage. The schema covers parameter details like maxResults and account. Missing details such as pagination or error behavior are not critical for a read-only search tool and are partially addressed by annotations.

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 each parameter (query, account, maxResults) fully documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema—it references 'Drive query syntax' but examples are already in the schema. Since the schema carries the full parameter documentation, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for files across the account's Google Drive using Drive query syntax. This specific verb-resource-scope combination differentiates it from siblings like gws.drive.list_folder (which lists folder contents) and gws.drive.read_file (which reads a specific 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (searching across the entire Drive) and gives explicit follow-up guidance on using the returned file ID with drive.read_file or drive.list_folder. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with list_folder or state when not to use it, so the exclusion criteria are implied rather than stated.

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