search_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that trash is excluded, that reads span the entire Drive, and that file content is untrusted data — a real security caveat. But it says nothing about result ordering, default page size (25) semantics, or permission/auth requirements for a search that may traverse shared content.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the query example and the untrusted-data warning each earn their place. No filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior alone. It covers scope and a security note but leaves return shape (file ID, name, mimeType), ordering, and pagination flow unspecified — enough for a basic call, thin for correct iterative use.

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 67%; the description's query example ('name contains resume') duplicates what the schema already states for that parameter and adds no syntax guidance beyond it. page_token and max_results are documented only in the schema, and max_results' 1-100 bound and default go unmentioned here.

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 ('Search Google Drive') and pins the scope precisely: My Drive and Shared with me, trash excluded. It implicitly separates the tool from the file siblings (get_file, download_file, update_file) but never names an alternative, so it falls just short of full 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?

'Drive reads cover the whole Drive' hints at cost/breadth and the trash exclusion implies a retrieval use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_file or download_file, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond trash.

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