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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the exact OAuth scope required, that the operation consumes Google's per-property quota despite costing no credits, and the crucial absence-not-zero semantics for lastSubmitted/lastDownloaded/warnings/errors. That last point is non-obvious behavior an agent could easily misread as a bug.

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 verb+resource, then scope, then quota/scope caveats, then the feedpath rule. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph is heavier than strictly needed.

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 describing the return shape (a `sitemaps` array) and the null-field semantics, and it covers auth scope, quota cost, and the list-vs-get switch. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining feedpath is the sitemap's own URL and that the response is always a `sitemaps` array (one entry when feedpath is supplied), which clarifies how the parameter shapes output beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Search Console sitemaps.list/sitemaps.get) and precisely delineates the scope: every sitemap for the property with its processing status, or one named sitemap. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_search_console_coverage or get_search_console_performance without opening any schema.

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 states the selection rule for the alternative behaviors: omit feedpath to list all, pass one to fetch a single sitemap. It also preempts the obvious question of why submit/delete aren't available, closing off exploration of non-existent tools.

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