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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuine behavioral caveat the agent could not know otherwise: Search Console no longer reports indexed counts, so `indexed` is usually 0. It doesn't cover auth or volume limits, but for a read-only listing the caveat is the materially important disclosure.

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-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the usage and the alternative. The dense field enumeration earns its place since there is no output schema, though the trailing Portuguese restatement adds length without new information.

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 supplies the return shape (named fields, per-type submitted URL counts), the known data-quality quirk, and where to go for indexing instead. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% and the `site` parameter is thoroughly documented in-schema (displayName, siteUrl, numeric id, substring, "demo"). The description only says 'for the property' and adds no formatting or resolution detail beyond that, 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 — sitemaps known to Search Console for a property — and enumerates the returned attributes (path, lastSubmitted, lastDownloaded, isPending, errors, warnings, per-type contents). No sibling tool overlaps: get_indexing_tracker is explicitly scoped away for indexed counts.

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 three concrete use cases (confirm Google is fetching the sitemap, spot errors/warnings, count submitted URLs) and explicitly routes the indexing question to get_indexing_tracker instead. The when-to-use and the alternative are both stated, not inferred.

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