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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search operation (implies read-only), returns structured results with IDs and web links, and mentions the default page_size. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the email parameter, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences add important details about returns and verification, and the parameter/return sections are clearly organized. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown here, the Returns section describes it), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and verification aspects. With no annotations, it provides adequate behavioral context for a search tool, and the output description reduces the need for further return value explanation.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains all three parameters: 'query' supports Gmail search operators, 'user_google_email' is required, and 'page_size' has a default of 10. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema which only provides titles and types.

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 specific verb ('searches') and resource ('messages in a user's Gmail account'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_messages' by specifying Gmail context and mentioning Message IDs, Thread IDs, and Gmail web interface links. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 for searching Gmail messages with query-based filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_messages' or 'get_gmail_message_content'. It provides context about returning IDs and web links for verification, but lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over other search or retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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