Team drive: read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive behavior: read is version-guarded via expected_version, pagination is cursor-based, and the caveat 'missing rows are not zero' warns about absent vs zero values. It does not say what happens when expected_version mismatches (error vs stale read), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then selector mapping, then continuation semantics. No filler, but the telegraphic style ('missing rows are not zero') costs a little readability for the information it carries.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two things that most affect correct invocation: selector-per-file-type and cursor/version continuity. Version-mismatch behavior and the limit parameter remain undefined, which is a modest but real gap for a versioned-read tool.

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 50% and the description compensates well for the selector object by mapping keys to file types (rows for CSV/TSV, sheet+rows for XLSX, page for PDF, slide for PPTX) and explaining that start indexes selected segments rather than absolute rows. However it refers to 'rows' where the schema exposes row_start/row_end, leaving the exact pairing ambiguous, and says nothing about limit.

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: reads a bounded segment page of a team-drive file, returning original locators and source version while verifying the current file. It is distinguishable from export/inspect by its paged-segment framing, though the phrasing ('original locators') is jargon-heavy and never names the resource type explicitly.

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 continuation rules ('Continue with next_cursor and identical selector/expected_version') which is real procedural guidance, but never says when to choose this over team_drive_inspect, team_drive_export or team_drive_search. An agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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