Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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 mentions the return format ('A formatted list') and the API used ('Drive API'), but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and method, and another describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more efficiently integrated, and there's minor redundancy in specifying 'Google Docs' twice.

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 (search with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return type but misses important context: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain any of the three parameters (user_google_email, query, page_size) beyond what the schema's property names imply. The description mentions 'search query' generally but doesn't clarify the query syntax, the purpose of user_google_email, or how page_size affects results. This fails to add meaningful semantic context.

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: 'Searches for Google Docs by name using Drive API (mimeType filter).' It specifies the verb ('Searches'), resource ('Google Docs'), and method ('using Drive API'), distinguishing it from general file search tools like 'search_drive_files' in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools beyond mentioning the mimeType filter.

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 doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over 'search_drive_files' or 'list_docs_in_folder' from the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the mimeType filter, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.

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