drive_search_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results span My Drive and shared-drive items, but omits whether this is read-only, how pagination works (page_token/page_size exist in schema), and what a result contains.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, examples inlined compactly with no wasted words. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

The rich schema covers parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about behavior and return shape. It explains the core query mechanism but leaves the agent guessing about result format and pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds query-string examples and scope relevant to the corpora parameter, but says nothing extra about email, order_by, page_token, or include_trashed.

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') and resource ('Google Drive files and folders') and pins the mechanism with query-syntax examples, making it distinguishable from siblings like drive_list_folder (browse one folder) or drive_get_file (fetch one file). Scope ('Includes My Drive and shared-drive items') further separates it from single-corpus tools.

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 by the query-syntax examples, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as drive_list_folder for simple browsing. The examples hint at scenarios without stating them.

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