Google Search Console MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to clarify what 'detailed information' entails, what error conditions to expect, or any rate limiting. It mentions nothing about authentication requirements or data freshness.

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 appropriately sized with clear structure: a single sentence for purpose followed by a dedicated Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. The parameter documentation is front-loaded with critical format constraints.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers inputs but leaves significant gaps regarding output structure (what 'detailed information' means) and tool selection criteria versus siblings. It meets minimum viability but does not provide a complete operational picture.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description excellently compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It specifies the exact format for site_url (including the sc-domain: prefix), provides examples, explains domain property behavior for subdomains, and clarifies that sitemap_index is optional and used for child sitemap retrieval.

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 tool lists sitemaps with 'detailed information' for a Search Console property, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_sitemaps', leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the 'enhanced' naming and 'detailed' qualifier.

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 Args section provides valuable guidance on site_url format (including domain property syntax) and sitemap_index usage for child sitemaps. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'get_sitemaps' or 'manage_sitemaps', offering only implicit context through parameter documentation.

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