List Google Docs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add behavioral context. It adds that shared drives are included, results are sorted newest first, and the returned fields include name, ID, owner, and last-modified date. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not mention pagination behavior explicitly.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then gives returned fields/sorting, then closes with actionable guidance. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with no required parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it searches, the fields returned, the ordering, the shared-drive scope, and how to use the result IDs with other tools. Pagination is already explained by the page_token schema description, so nothing essential is missing.

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 67%, with query and page_token already documented in the schema and max_results constrained by minimum/maximum/default values. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the verb "Search," so it neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search the user's Google Drive for Google Docs documents." It further clarifies scope by noting shared drives are included and distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating the returned fields and sort order. An agent can immediately understand this is the entry-point listing tool as opposed to get_document or list_comments.

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 gives clear usage context: it searches Drive and says "Use the returned ID with the other tools," which implies this is the discovery step before calling document or comment tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that no conflict arises.

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