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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and destructive behavior. The description adds useful external context about Google Search Console, merchant scoping, and sitemap suffix variants, but it does not explain the destructive side effects, idempotency implications, or expected response behavior in more detail.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the action tag and core purpose. The parenthetical details about sitemap variants are useful, though the sentence is dense and could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

It provides the essential target, merchant scope, and sitemap file variants for an external mutation tool with no output schema. However, for a non-idempotent destructive action, it leaves important operational details unstated, including permissions, error behavior, and response expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name both parameters and explains that the website can be identified by seliee_website_id or seliee_website_uuid, but it does not clarify whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, whether one is preferred, or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 a specific action (submit a sitemap), a specific external target (Google Search Console), and the resource identified by website ID or UUID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools such as get_gservice_query_options or list_gservice_query.

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 implies usage context by noting this is the same call publish workers make after a publish, which helps the agent understand when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to call it manually, when not to call it, or which alternatives exist.

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