top_external_sharers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that coverage is limited to the co-admin user's visible content and caps, and that fetch errors indicate incomplete coverage. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, though the context implies no side effects.

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 and covers purpose, usage, parameters, coverage limitations, and return format in a logical flow. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and it remains clear.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (folders_scanned, capped, fetch_errors, top_external_sharers) and error handling. Parameters are fully explained, and limitations are clearly stated. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage) by explaining all four parameters: root_folder_id, max_folders, max_depth as traversal bounds (referencing external_collaborators), and top as the number of owners. The explanation is adequate, though it relies on knowledge of another tool for full parameter details.

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 ranks internal owners by external exposure, using a traversal method similar to sibling tools. The verb 'rank' and resource 'internal owners by external exposure' are specific, and it distinguishes itself by focusing on owners rather than just listing collaborators or links.

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 explains the tool is built on the same traversal as external_collaborators/public_shared_links, implying use when you need aggregated exposure per owner. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only raw lists are needed) or provide direct alternatives.

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