List sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'last submitted/downloaded times, errors, warnings and URL counts', which gives some insight into the output but not into behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or handling of missing properties. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and key output fields efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: it lists submitted sitemaps and includes the fields returned. It does not mention pagination or limits, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity. The schema provides the parameter details, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter siteUrl, and the schema already explains what it is and how to find it. The description text adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('sitemaps'), and the scope ('submitted for a property'), and it specifies the data returned (times, errors, warnings, URL counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_submit_sitemap (submit action) and sitemap_check (likely checks a specific sitemap), so an agent can identify the tool correctly.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is self-evident that you use it to list sitemaps, but it does not name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. The schema parameter hints to use gsc_list_sites to find the property, but that is in the schema, not the description. There is no guidance on choosing between this and sitemap_check or gsc_submit_sitemap.

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