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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required 'Submit sitemaps' permission and what happens on failure (the response gives the user a grant link). That is exactly the kind of auth/error-path context an agent needs before calling an openWorld mutation with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the UI analogue, then triggers, then prerequisites, then the negative disambiguation. Four sentences, none redundant, 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?

A two-parameter mutation with no output schema, yet the description covers preconditions (permission), trigger conditions, failure behavior, and scope limits. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and the optional-when-one-property-picked rule. The description adds only the passing phrase 'for a picked property' and no format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resubmit a sitemap to Google Search Console') and anchors it to the UI equivalent (Sitemaps > Add a new sitemap). It also distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling gsc_sitemaps and from indexnow_submit without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (after publishing a new sitemap, after moving it, or when gsc_sitemaps shows it missing) and names the alternative for other engines (indexnow_submit for Bing). It also rules out a plausible misuse (per-page indexing) by stating Google has no API for it.

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