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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true annotations: it discloses the two-phase write, what the preview returns, the WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED error code, token expiry and invalidation on argument change, the data_availability result semantics, a prompt-injection warning about result strings, and a per-call cost note. No contradiction with annotations — the declared write behavior matches 'This writes to the institution.'

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 purpose and scope, then the confirmation protocol, then result semantics — a sensible ordering with little waste. It is on the long side and ends with an abrupt untranslated Korean line about token consumption that sits outside the otherwise English narrative.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the preview return, the confirmation error code, and the data_availability enumeration including the critical warning that no_rows/access_error do not mean zero. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this destructive write safely.

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; the description still adds real semantics the schema does not, namely that changing any argument invalidates the confirmation_token and that omitting the token yields a fresh preview. It also restates the site-containment constraint on feedpath, which reinforces rather than duplicates the schema.

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 (submit a sitemap URL to the linked Search Console site) plus the scope constraint that the URL must live inside the selected site. It explicitly names the sibling that reverses it (the sitemap removal tool), so an agent can distinguish this from sitemap__delete and site__add without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule, names the alternative for undo, and specifies exactly when not to call: the first call only previews and never writes. The protocol (show preview, wait for user agreement, then re-call with the token) leaves nothing to inference.

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