search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation and return type. It does not mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, limitations, or side effects, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. The 'Returns' line is useful. However, its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 three parameters, no annotations, an output schema that is not described, and numerous sibling search/list tools, this description is too sparse. It omits key context about query syntax, authentication needs, and result formatting, making it difficult for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only alludes to searching by name but does not explain how `query` maps to that behavior, what `user_google_email` is for, or how `page_size` is used. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Searches for Google Docs by name') and the resource (Google Docs), while mentioning the use of Drive API and mimeType filter to scope results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_drive_files, which searches all file types, and list_docs_in_folder, which lists rather than searches.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_drive_files or list_docs_in_folder, and does not mention prerequisites like authentication. It lacks any explicit or implicit usage context beyond the tool's name.

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