search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope (authenticated user's Drive) and return fields (ID, name, URL, last modified time). It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool, this is fairly transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second describes output. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers input, output fields, and scope. However, it could mention pagination behavior or default limit more explicitly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the search scope and explicitly states the output structure (list of matching files with specific fields), which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful value.

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 specifies the action (searches), resource (the authenticated user's Google Drive), and filter (name contains query). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_document' which targets a specific document, and 'create_document' which creates new ones.

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 for finding documents by name but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like full-text search or list operations. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions.

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