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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, open-world call, so the safety bar is low. The description adds context annotations cannot: the well-known Google limitation that indexed-URL counts are no longer reported, pre-empting an agent from expecting or fabricating indexation numbers. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only list call that is a minor gap.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and payload, the second prevents a wrong expectation and names the alternative. Front-loaded with the capability and 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a full schema, existing annotations, and an output schema, so return structure and safety need not be re-explained. The description covers scope, payload, a known data limitation, and the fallback tool — everything an agent needs to call it 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 100% and the single `site_url` parameter already documents both the URL-prefix and sc-domain forms with examples. The description only repeats the concept of "a Search Console property" without adding format or validation detail, 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 ("List the sitemaps submitted for a Search Console property") and scopes it to a single property. It also enumerates what is returned per entry (submission/download dates, errors, warnings, URL counts per content type), which tells an agent exactly what this produces versus gsc_list_sites or gsc_inspect_url.

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?

Explicitly routes page-level index questions to `gsc_inspect_url`, which is a genuine when-to-use-this-instead signal and also explains a missing data point. It does not mention gsc_list_sites as the way to discover the site_url value, and it gives no explicit exclusion for when sitemap data is irrelevant, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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