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 but only states the action without explaining side effects, success/failure states, idempotency of resubmission, or rate limits. It mentions 'resubmit' implying idempotent behavior but doesn't clarify the behavioral difference between new and existing submissions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a structured Args section. While the site_url explanation is verbose regarding subdomain filtering, this information is valuable GSC-specific context. No extraneous marketing language is present.

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 two-parameter submission tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers inputs and prerequisites. It would benefit from mentioning submission confirmation behavior or common errors, but the parameter documentation is thorough enough for invocation.

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 Args section comprehensively compensates by documenting both parameters with exact formats (e.g., 'sc-domain:example.com'), examples, and semantic context (domain properties cover subdomains, must come from list_properties).

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 specific action ('Submit a new sitemap or resubmit an existing one') and target ('to Google'), using precise verbs that distinguish it from siblings like delete_sitemap or get_sitemaps.

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 differentiates between submitting new vs. resubmitting existing sitemaps and references list_properties as a prerequisite source for the site_url format. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_sitemaps or add_site.

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