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 Drive API and mimeType filter but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a page_size parameter), error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail about structure.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that convey the core functionality and return format. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first. However, the second sentence about return format could be more specific about what 'formatted list' means.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to document return values), the description fails to provide necessary context about parameter usage, differentiation from alternatives, and behavioral expectations like authentication or pagination.

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 and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what the 'query' parameter should contain, how 'user_google_email' is used, or what 'page_size' controls. The description mentions 'by name' which might imply something about the query parameter, but this is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 Google Docs') and resource ('by name using Drive API'), and mentions the mimeType filter which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drive_files' or 'list_docs_in_folder', which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_drive_files' or 'list_docs_in_folder'. The description mentions the mimeType filter but doesn't explain when this specific search approach is preferred over other search methods available in sibling tools.

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