Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a formatted list of files/folders with details, mentions default behaviors for parameters, and notes efficiency considerations. However, it lacks information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination beyond page_size, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Searches').

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?

Well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. The content is dense but necessary given the parameter complexity. Some sentences could be slightly more concise (e.g., the corpora explanation is verbose), but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal fluff.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description does a strong job. It explains all parameters thoroughly and provides behavioral context. However, it could better address authentication needs or error cases to be fully complete for a search tool with many options.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains required vs. optional, default values, behavioral dependencies (e.g., drive_id and corpora interaction), and practical usage notes (e.g., 'Supports Google Drive search operators', efficiency tips). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Searches for files and folders'), the resource ('within a user's Google Drive, including shared drives'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_drive_items' (which likely lists without search) and 'search_docs' (which searches only Docs files). It provides a complete, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 Drive files with query capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_docs'. It provides some contextual guidance (e.g., 'Prefer 'user' or 'drive' over 'allDrives' for efficiency') but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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