Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (a read operation) and specifies the return format ('Formatted spreadsheet information including title and sheets list'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 distinct sections for purpose, arguments, and returns, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the input and output schemas, and the purpose sentence could be more concise (e.g., by integrating parameter hints).

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but additional context like error handling or usage examples would enhance completeness for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters in the Args section with names, types, and required status, adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter semantics (e.g., what constitutes a valid spreadsheet_id or how user_google_email is used), leaving some ambiguity. With 2 parameters fully listed but not fully explained, this is above baseline but not perfect.

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: 'Gets information about a specific spreadsheet including its sheets.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('spreadsheet'), and scope ('including its sheets'), which distinguishes it from generic list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_spreadsheets' or 'get_search_engine_info' beyond the specific resource focus.

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_spreadsheets' (for listing spreadsheets) or 'read_sheet_values' (for reading content), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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