Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches by name and returns a paginated result (implied by 'page_size'), but lacks details on permissions needed (e.g., whether the user_google_email must have access), rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section listing parameters with brief explanations. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., embedding parameter details in prose). Every sentence adds value.

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 (search with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, search scope limitations) and doesn't leverage sibling tool names for differentiation. It's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'user_google_email' as the user's Google email address, 'query' as a search query string, and 'page_size' as the maximum number of docs to return with a default. However, it doesn't clarify format constraints (e.g., email validation) or query syntax (e.g., wildcards). The description partially compensates but not fully for the coverage gap.

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: 'Search for Google Docs by name.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (Google Docs), and scope (by name). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drive_files_tool' or 'list_drive_items_tool', which might offer similar functionality for different resources or scopes.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_drive_files_tool' (which might search broader file types) or 'list_drive_items_tool' (which might list without searching), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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