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 minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no documents match. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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 that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and the schema covers most parameters, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools, but otherwise it provides adequate context for the tool's basic function.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents 'max_results' and 'order_by' well. The description mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at the 'query' parameter but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the documentation work.

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') and resource ('Google Documents from your Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_recent_google_docs' or 'search_google_docs', which appear to serve similar listing/searching functions.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_google_docs' or 'search_google_docs' that appear in the sibling list. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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