Google Workspace MCP VE

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 mentions search functionality but omits critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, how results are paginated (beyond the page_size parameter), what the output format looks like, rate limits, or whether it searches across multiple spaces by default. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately describe the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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. Every word contributes directly to understanding what the tool does. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise for a search tool with good schema documentation.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), high schema coverage (83%), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, for a search tool with 6 parameters operating in a collaborative messaging domain, it should ideally provide more context about authentication needs, result limitations, or how it differs from similar tools. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'text content and/or time range' which aligns with the 'query' and 'time_filter' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how space_id interacts with max_spaces) or provide usage examples beyond what's in the 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 action ('Searches for messages') and target resource ('in Google Chat spaces'), with specific search criteria ('by text content and/or time range'). It distinguishes from generic 'get_messages' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'search_docs' or 'search_gmail_messages' beyond the domain context.

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 'get_messages' (which likely retrieves messages without search) or other search tools in different domains. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for this specific search operation.

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