Google Workspace MCP Server

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 the API but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements (beyond the user_google_email parameter), error handling, or performance characteristics. The Returns section describes output format, but behavioral traits like network dependencies or pagination are omitted.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It's appropriately sized for a 12-parameter tool, though some sentences could be more front-loaded (e.g., the core purpose is stated first, but parameter details dominate).

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and includes output format, though it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, rate limits). The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but more operational guidance would help.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed parameter documentation with examples (e.g., 'd5' for date_restrict, 'lang_en' for language), default values, and constraints (e.g., '1-10' for num). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters understandable.

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 ('Performs a search') and resource ('using Google Custom Search JSON API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs or search_drive_files. It precisely identifies the search engine being used, which is crucial for differentiation.

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 like search_custom_siterestrict or other search tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., Google authentication setup) or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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