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 tool performs searches and returns formatted results, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements (implied by user_google_email but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'formatted' means. The description provides basic function but lacks behavioral depth.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place, though the Returns section could be slightly more informative. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the parameter documentation is organized efficiently.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly, states the purpose clearly, and mentions the return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like authentication or error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies required vs optional parameters, provides defaults, ranges (1-10 for num), and enum values for safe. The only minor gap is not explaining the format/expectations for the sites parameter beyond 'List of sites/domains'.

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 with a specific verb ('Performs a search') and resource ('restricted to specific sites using Google Custom Search'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_custom' (unrestricted search) and other search tools by explicitly mentioning site restriction.

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 implies usage context through the tool name and description ('restricted to specific sites'), suggesting it should be used when limiting search to particular domains. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'search_custom' or other search tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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