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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Additive — never deletes' largely restates structured data. The genuinely new information is the verified-site requirement; nothing is said about auth scopes, failure modes, or what happens if the sitemap is malformed.

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?

Two functional sentences, front-loaded with the action and its safety property. The trailing 'Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.' is build metadata that adds nothing for an agent and costs a sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with both parameters undocumented at 0% schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to know what to pass in each field.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it explains neither. 'feedpath' in particular is non-obvious jargon (the sitemap URL or path) and 'siteUrl' format (domain vs URL-prefix property) is left unstated.

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?

Specific verb + resource (submit a sitemap) with scope (for a verified site), which clearly separates it from gsc_list_sitemaps and gsc_inspect_url. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the output, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a verified site' implies a prerequisite and '(or re-submit)' implies repeat calls are fine, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-call gsc_list_sitemaps instead, and no error guidance for an unverified property.

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