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

Annotations cover safety idempotency and open-world nature, but the description adds a meaningful trait they do not: the call previews by default and only performs the submission when confirm is true. It also discloses the cross-site constraint. Does not state required auth/permission scope, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the precondition, then the confirm behavior. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope constraint, and confirm semantics. Gaps remain around what a successful submission returns and whether the site must be verified first, but the essential calling information is present.

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 only 33% (only sitemap_url documented), so the description carries more burden: it does explain the confirm flag's dry-run semantics, which is the most important parameter. However, site_url is left implicit, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (Submit) and resource (sitemap) with an explicit scope restriction: the site must belong to one of this agency's clients. This clearly separates it from the read-only gsc_list_sitemaps sibling, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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?

Provides a precondition ('The sitemap must live on that site') and the confirm-gated preview behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, e.g., that gsc_list_sitemaps should be checked first or that the site must already be added via gsc_add_site.

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