Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and mentions authentication context, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if the email is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding, though minor improvements in detail could enhance it further.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, input, and output, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are partially mitigated by the structured return information.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'user_google_email' is required and describes it as 'The user's Google email address,' but the schema already indicates it's a required string. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining format constraints or usage context, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Retrieves a list of calendars accessible to the authenticated user.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('calendars'), and scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_events' or 'list_drive_items', which prevents a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's function but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_events' or other list operations. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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