Google api methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact that annotations cannot convey: the results are derived from the API's Discovery contract, which tells the agent where the data comes from and implies static metadata rather than live state. It says nothing about result size, paging behavior, or what happens when the api/version pair is unknown.

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?

A single compact sentence plus a parenthetical, with no filler or hedging; the scoping information is front-loaded. It is arguably too short for the job rather than padded, so brevity is not the problem — omission is.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter discovery-introspection tool sitting in a family of five google.api.* tools, the definition should at minimum disambiguate purpose and explain the two non-obvious filters. As written, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over google.api.describe.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden, and it only gestures at two of them by echoing their names ('filter by resource', 'writes only' maps to writes_only). It says nothing about the required 'api' identifier format or what the 'version' parameter does, and it never clarifies whether 'writes only' restricts output to write methods or filters something else.

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 identifies the resource as the method catalog of a single Google API sourced from its Discovery contract, which is more specific than the title alone. However, it opens with a bare noun phrase rather than a verb (list/retrieve), and it never distinguishes itself from the neighboring google.api.list, google.api.describe, google.api.read or google.api.call, so an agent must guess which of these five similarly named tools returns method metadata.

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 parenthetical '(filter by resource, writes only)' describes filtering capability but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer google.api.describe or google.api.call instead. With four siblings in the google.api.* family, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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