Google Docs MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'detailed information,' but does not disclose aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'detailed' entails beyond what annotations cover. It does not contradict annotations, so it earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only annotation, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, and with annotations and output schema covering safety and return values, it lacks only usage guidelines to be fully adequate for an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'document_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Google Document'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_google_doc' or 'list_google_docs', which might have overlapping or similar functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'read_google_doc', 'list_google_docs', 'search_google_docs'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.

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