Google Workspace MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's dual retrieval modes, parameter interactions, and default behaviors (e.g., 'calendar_id' defaults to 'primary', 'time_min' defaults to current time). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieves' implies reading).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by detailed parameter explanations in a formatted 'Args' section and a 'Returns' section. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the parameter explanations are thorough but slightly verbose). Every section adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides excellent parameter semantics and clear purpose. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage and parameters. It could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) given the lack of annotations.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 8 parameters. It clarifies required vs. optional parameters, default values, format requirements (e.g., RFC3339), parameter interactions (e.g., 'event_id' overrides time filtering), and practical usage notes (e.g., 'Use 'primary' for the user's primary calendar', 'Calendar IDs can be obtained using `list_calendars`').

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 specific action ('Retrieves events') and resource ('from a specified Google Calendar'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_event', 'modify_event', and 'delete_event' which perform different operations on calendar events. It also specifies the dual retrieval modes (single event by ID or multiple events within time range).

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 clear context for usage by explaining the two primary modes (single event retrieval vs. time-range retrieval) and how parameters interact (e.g., 'event_id' overrides time filtering parameters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_calendars' (a sibling tool) or mention any prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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