Google Docs MCP Server

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as search scope ('by name, content, or other criteria') but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or result formatting. With annotations covering safety, it meets a baseline but could be more informative.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required), annotations indicating read-only safety, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the search purpose and criteria, though it could improve by addressing usage guidelines or behavioral nuances like pagination.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described and one ('modified_after') lacking a description. The description mentions search criteria ('by name, content, or other criteria'), which aligns with the schema but does not add significant meaning beyond it, such as explaining search syntax or 'other criteria' specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's 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 tool's purpose as searching for Google Documents by name, content, or other criteria, using specific verbs ('search for') and resources ('Google Documents'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_google_docs' or 'get_recent_google_docs', which also retrieve documents but with different criteria.

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 mention sibling tools like 'list_google_docs' (for unfiltered listing) or 'get_recent_google_docs' (for time-based retrieval), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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