Google Workspace MCP VE

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by fields but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), error handling, or authentication needs. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (user_google_email, query, page_size) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing searchable fields (name, email, phone number, other fields), which loosely relates to the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.

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: searching contacts using specific fields (name, email, phone number, or other fields). It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('contacts'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' or 'get_contact', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 'list_contacts' (which might list all contacts without search) or 'get_contact' (which might retrieve a specific contact by ID), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage.

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