search_drive_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: shared drive inclusion, default page_size, drive_id/corpora interactions, and an efficiency tip ('Prefer 'user' or 'drive' over 'allDrives' for efficiency'). This goes well beyond a bare 'Searches for files' statement.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns section. While it is somewhat lengthy, every line serves a purpose, especially given the 0% schema coverage. It does not waste words, but the parameter details could be slightly more compressed.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, no annotations, multiple drive-related options), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, scope, parameter semantics, defaults, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by documenting all six parameters: required user email, query string, page_size default, optional drive_id with behavior, include_items_from_all_drives default and scope, and corpora default logic. This is comprehensive and adds significant clarity.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches for files and folders within a user's Google Drive, including shared drives.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drive_items, which lists items rather than searching by query.

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 implies searching as the core use case and gives details about parameters (e.g., search operators, corpora) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_drive_items. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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