search_drive_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like default values, parameter interactions, and efficiency tips, but misses critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond page_size, or what happens on errors. For a 7-parameter search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), front-loaded purpose statement, and efficient parameter explanations. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the corpora explanation is slightly verbose), but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks completeness in other areas. It explains the return format but doesn't cover authentication, error handling, or pagination beyond page_size. For a complex search tool with rich parameter interactions, more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters in detail. It clarifies required vs. optional parameters, default values, behavioral dependencies (e.g., 'If None, behavior depends on...'), and provides specific guidance like 'Supports Google Drive search operators' and efficiency recommendations for 'corpora'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 searches for files and folders within Google Drive, including shared drives. It specifies the verb 'searches' and resource 'files and folders', distinguishing it from siblings like list_docs_in_folder (which lists rather than searches) and get_drive_file_content (which retrieves content rather than searching).

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 usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'If None, behavior depends on...'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_docs or list_docs_in_folder. It provides some context about efficiency ('Prefer 'user' or 'drive' over 'allDrives' for efficiency'), but no clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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