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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the Search Console API limitation that sitemap URLs and indexed counts are not reported, plus the pending/error/warning state surface. It stops short of noting auth or rate-limit behavior, so not 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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, then the API limitation and alternatives, then per-parameter guidance. No redundant restatement of the title or schema fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return shape itself and does so by naming the per-sitemap fields and content-type URL counts. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse field docs: sitemapIndex returns an index's children, and sitemapUrl scopes to a single sitemap whose last submitted and downloaded times are returned. That behavioral payoff is not present in the schema text.

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 ("Lists the sitemaps submitted for the site's Search Console property") and enumerates the returned fields (errors, warnings, pending state, URL counts by content type). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_sitemap_urls and inspect_urls, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: list_sitemap_urls for the URLs and inspect_urls for index status. It also gives per-parameter routing guidance (sitemapIndex for index children, sitemapUrl for a single submitted sitemap), leaving nothing to inference.

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