Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Get events' but doesn't specify if it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by detailed parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters, though the parameter list could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and formats (e.g., 'ISO format', 'default: primary'), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. This is crucial given the 6 parameters involved.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('events from a calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_calendars_tool' or 'create_event_tool' beyond the basic function, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_calendars_tool' or 'create_event_tool'. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for its use, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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