Mariana Google 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. The verb 'Get' correctly implies a read-only operation, but the description omits error behavior (e.g., event not found), what constitutes 'full details' (attendees, attachments, recurrence rules), or any rate limiting concerns.

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 a single, efficient sentence of nine words with no redundancy. It front-loads the essential information (action + resource) and every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. While there is no output schema, the phrase 'full details' provides minimal compensation; however, the agent would benefit from knowing the specific fields returned (attendees, location, etc.).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., it doesn't explain that 'calendar_id' defaults to 'primary' or that 'account' specifies which authorized Google account to query), but it doesn't need to given the schema completeness.

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 ('Get') and resource ('calendar event') with scope ('full details', 'specific'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like calendar_list or calendar_search by emphasizing 'specific' event retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context by requiring an 'event_id' to get 'full details', suggesting this is for targeted lookups rather than browsing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus calendar_search (for finding events without IDs) or calendar_list.

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