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, but offers minimal information. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this, nor does it disclose case-sensitivity behavior, search scope (titles vs. descriptions vs. attendees), rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 five words that front-loads the primary action. While admirably brief, it may be overly concise given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), leaving significant capability (time filtering, multi-account support) unmentioned. No wasted words, but potentially insufficient length for the context.

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 rich parameter set (5 parameters including time ranges and calendar/account selection) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It exclusively describes the keyword search capability while failing to acknowledge time range filtering, calendar ID specification, or multi-account support, which are critical for effective invocation.

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, documenting all five parameters (query, time_min, time_max, calendar_id, account) including their types and formats. The description mentions 'by keyword' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., query syntax, time range logic) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 core action ('Search') and resource ('calendar events') with the specific mechanism ('by keyword'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'calendar_get' (retrieve by ID) or 'calendar_list' (list all events), which would help an agent select the correct tool when multiple options exist.

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 does not indicate whether this is the preferred method for finding events by title, or when to use 'calendar_get' instead, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or calendar access permissions.

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