Google Docs MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (hierarchy, IDs, structure) and hints at optional content summaries, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output details. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the output includes hierarchy, IDs, and structure, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral context (e.g., error conditions), leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (document_id and include_content). The description implies the tool operates on a specific document but doesn't add syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List all tabs'), the resource ('in a Google Document'), and the specific output details ('including their hierarchy, IDs, and structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_google_docs' (which lists documents) and 'get_document_info' (which provides general document metadata).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid document ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_document_info' or 'read_google_doc' that might provide overlapping functionality.

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