drive_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the tool's function without mentioning key behaviors such as output format, pagination, required permissions, or rate limits. The schema descriptions are minimal and do not compensate. For a search tool, users would benefit from knowing what fields are returned or how pagination works.

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 a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action and object. However, given the minimal information, it could be expanded slightly without sacrificing conciseness. A 5 would be reserved for equally concise but more informative descriptions.

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 context includes a search tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description fails to specify what the return value looks like (e.g., list of file IDs, names, metadata) or any additional constraints. For a tool that interacts with Google Drive, users may need to know about performance, sorting, or error handling. The description leaves significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters are described). The description adds no new meaning beyond 'using a query string', which is already implied by the 'query' parameter. The schema already states 'Drive search syntax supported' and default for maxResults. Hence, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond baseline.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'files in Google Drive'. It also hints at the search capability with 'using a query string'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like drive_list or drive_read, which could also be used to retrieve files. A 5 would require direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (e.g., drive_list, drive_read, drive_file_info), the lack of when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions is a significant gap. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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