Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get values') but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the range is invalid, whether there are rate limits, what authentication is needed beyond the email parameter, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides a parameter section with helpful explanations. Each sentence earns its place by adding necessary information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose and parameters more seamlessly.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description provides good parameter semantics, this is adequate but has clear gaps. The description doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, or usage context. For a data retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, more operational guidance would be helpful.

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 provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond what the schema offers. The schema has 0% description coverage (just type definitions), but the description explains: 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address', 'spreadsheet_id: The spreadsheet ID', 'range: A1 notation range', and 'value_render: How values should be rendered' with specific enum values. This adds substantial value over 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's purpose: 'Get values from a Google Sheet.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Google Sheet'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spreadsheet_metadata_tool' or 'get_doc_content_tool' that also retrieve information from Google Workspace products.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other data retrieval tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or constraints for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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