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 disclosure burden. It successfully reveals the interactive nature ('Opens a browser') and dual capability (new vs. re-authentication). However, it omits details about token storage/persistence, error handling, blocking behavior, or OAuth scopes requested.

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?

Three sentences, optimally structured: purpose first, behavioral mechanism second, usage context third. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter authentication utility without output schema. Covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to invoke it. Minor gap: could explicitly state that authentication is required before using the sibling calendar/contacts/gmail tools to establish the dependency chain.

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 100% (account_name fully documented with examples). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 applies since the schema already provides complete coverage. No contradiction or elaboration present.

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 ('Authenticate'), resource ('Google account'), and mechanism ('Opens a browser for OAuth consent'). It effectively distinguishes this prerequisite tool from its operational siblings (calendar, gmail, contacts tools) by focusing solely on account authentication.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('add a new account or re-authenticate an existing one'), providing clear scenarios for invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify that this should be used as a prerequisite before invoking the sibling Google tools, though this is somewhat implicit.

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