drive_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool uses Drive query syntax, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior or result limits beyond the default value. The added query syntax context earns a middle score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical query syntax detail. No wasted words or redundant information. The description is extremely concise and all content is purposeful.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It explains the query syntax and gives examples. It could optionally mention that max_results caps the number of results, but the tool's behavior is largely understandable from the schema and description combination. The completeness is strong but not perfect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'query' parameter with concrete examples, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema field. 'max_results' is not mentioned, but its name and default value provide some clarity. The description adds strong value for the central parameter without fully covering the second.

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 tool's function ('Search Google Drive files') with a specific verb and resource, and the query syntax examples ('name contains "report"') distinguish it from sibling tools like drive_read_file or drive_list_folder. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 when to use the tool (for query-based search) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as drive_list_folder for listing files in a folder. The query syntax examples provide some usage context, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or reference to sibling tools.

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