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 the scope ('including shared drives') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'searches'), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though hinted in parameters), or error handling. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, with zero wasted words, 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but for a search tool with many parameters, more context 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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain the semantics of parameters like 'query' (beyond schema notes), 'drive_id', or 'corpora' in the description text. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Searches for files and folders within a user's Google Drive, including shared drives.' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('files and folders'), and scope ('within a user's Google Drive, including shared drives'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_docs', which might have overlapping functionality.

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_drive_items' (which might list without search) or 'search_docs' (which might search specifically in Docs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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