Team drive: search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing a non-obvious trait: results are 'not authoritative or exhaustive business data', which changes how the agent should treat hits. Minor gap on result set size/pagination behavior.

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, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the trust caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and cursor/prefix semantics live in the schema. For a 4-param search tool the description covers purpose, match semantics and the verify-before-answering rule; only result-volume and paging expectations are unaddressed.

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%: cursor and prefix are already documented in the schema, while query and limit are not. The description partially compensates by explaining what query matches (names, indexed keywords, short Chinese terms, configured aliases), but says nothing about limit or paging behavior.

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 ('Find candidate files') and scopes it to names plus indexed keyword content. It implicitly separates itself from team_drive_list/inspect by calling results 'candidate' files, but never names a sibling 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?

The closing clause 'inspect/read before answering' tells the agent this tool is a first-pass filter that must be followed by team_drive_inspect or team_drive_read. Clear context, but no explicit condition for choosing search over team_drive_list, and no guidance on when to use prefix vs query.

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