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

The annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the operation is strictly additive, never deletes anything, the sitemap stays listed in Search Console, and re-submitting causes Google to fetch it again. That last point explains the idempotentHint=false in concrete terms. It does not mention permission/verification requirements or latency before Google actually fetches.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the operation in the first sentence and the consequences in the second. The trailing 'Tools revision: d80f65c0.' is build noise that adds nothing for an agent, and the two sentences could be tightened slightly.

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 the behavioral side is well covered. The gap is parameter guidance for two mandatory, entirely undocumented strings, which leaves the definition incomplete for actually invoking the tool correctly.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — yet it says nothing about siteUrl format (domain property vs URL-prefix property) or feedpath format (full URL vs relative path). These are the two details most likely to cause a failed call, and they are absent from both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Submit (or re-submit) a sitemap for a verified site.' An agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, name any sibling (gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_request_indexing, gsc_inspect_url) to sharpen the boundary, 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?

Usage is implied by 'submit (or re-submit)' and by the note that re-submitting triggers a re-fetch, which tells an agent when re-submission is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the prerequisite that the site must already be verified and present in Search Console, and no pointer to gsc_list_sitemaps for checking what is already registered.

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