List submitted sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly noting that Google's deprecated sitemap indexed count is intentionally omitted, which prevents an agent from assuming that field will exist. This is useful beyond the annotations without overreaching.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: action and scope first, return values second, and usage guidance last. The mention of the intentional omission is relevant and concise, and 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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, an important omission, and use cases. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the site_url parameter already has a detailed description including format examples and a permission-error warning. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('List') and resource ('all sitemaps submitted for a Search Console property'), and clarifies scope with 'all'. The description also distinguishes itself from sibling sitemap tools by focusing on listing existing submissions, and it specifies the key returned data fields. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even without opening the 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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user asks about sitemap health, submission status, or wants to audit which sitemaps are working.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but for a list operation the positive use cases are clear enough to guide an agent.

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