Get Drive Shareable Link

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as authentication requirements or error conditions, which are not critical given the simple read-only nature.

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, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the resource type (file or folder) and the action, and the existing structured data handles the remaining details.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with both parameters (file_id and user_google_email) already described in detail. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameters, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.

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 'Gets the shareable link for a Google Drive file or folder.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('shareable link'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_download_url or get_drive_file_content that serve different purposes.

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 use when a shareable link is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_drive_file_download_url or get_drive_file_permissions. It lacks exclusions or references to alternative tools, making the usage context clear but not differentiated.

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