search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does say the search uses Drive API, applies a mimeType filter, and returns a formatted list. It does not mention auth prerequisites, pagination through page_size, or how the query is interpreted, leaving notable gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, and the return line is not excessive. It could drop the redundant return-type note since an output schema exists, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it lacks parameter semantics, auth context, and guidance on behavior or alternatives. It leaves enough ambiguity that an agent would need to infer or ask about page_size and user_google_email.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies that query is a name-based search term. It does not explain user_google_email's role (which account to search) or page_size behavior, so it fails to compensate for the 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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Searches'), targets 'Google Docs', and explains the Drive API mimeType filter, which distinguishes this from broad Drive search siblings like search_drive_files. The resource and scope are immediately clear.

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 the use case—find Google Docs by name—but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_drive_files or list_docs_in_folder. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is provided.

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