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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the error-return shape: a dict with error codes (missing_permission, not_found, rate_limited, auth_error, http_error), message, and hint. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not elaborate on rate-limit specifics or auth requirements.

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 three compact lines that front-load the primary result fields, then error behavior, then the parameter note. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only listing tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers returned fields, error behavior, and the workspace parameter. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying which site is targeted (since only workspace is parameterized) or how the site context is resolved.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the sole workspace parameter. It does so by explaining that workspace is the customer workspace slug and is optional when only one workspace exists, which adds useful semantics beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema.

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 identifies the resource as submitted sitemaps of the site and enumerates returned fields (path, submission/download time, status, warning/error counts), which makes the read/list purpose evident even without an explicit verb. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sc_submit_sitemap, sc_delete_sitemap, or bing_list_sitemaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sc_submit_sitemap, sc_delete_sitemap, or bing_list_sitemaps. The only conditional note is about the workspace parameter being optional when there is a single workspace, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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