top_external_sharers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the traversal logic, coverage limitations (co-admin's visible content), return fields (folders_scanned, capped, top_external_sharers), and error format. This provides adequate behavioral insight for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear sections. It is somewhat verbose with the return field listing, but overall well-structured and not overly long for the content. Every sentence adds value.

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 and four parameters, the description is quite complete: it explains the ranking logic, traversal bounds (by reference), coverage, and return fields. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explicitly describes 'top' (default 20). The other parameters are referenced vaguely as 'traversal bounds (see external_collaborators)', which does not add meaning specific to this tool. This is insufficient.

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 that the tool ranks internal owners by external exposure, using a specific verb 'rank' and resource 'internal owners'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like external_collaborators and public_shared_links by focusing on ranking rather than listing.

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 mentions that it uses the same traversal as siblings but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks context for choosing this tool over alternatives, and does not state prerequisites or constraints beyond the traversal bounds.

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