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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world), and the description adds valuable detail on return contents — sitemap type, last submitted/downloaded, warnings, errors, submitted vs indexed URL counts. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only reporting tool that is acceptable.

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, no waste, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields precisely, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

Only one optional parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), including the site format and omit-for-default behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description names the specific resource (sitemaps) and enumerates exactly what is reported — path, type, submit/download timestamps, warnings, errors, URL counts. This clearly separates it from read siblings like gsc_query or gsc_inspect_url, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when the user asks whether Google has read their sitemap or why pages are not indexed.' That is concrete context, but there is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. gsc_inspect_url for per-URL checks).

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