Sitemap status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context about the returned status fields, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as data freshness, pagination, or whether the result includes all sitemaps. This is modest added value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is more of a labeled phrase than a complete sentence, but every phrase communicates a meaningful aspect of the tool's output.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus annotations and schema cover the core invocation details. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter, site, with an example and a pointer to list_sites. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the entire semantic burden.

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 identifies the specific resource ('Sitemaps submitted to Google') and the data shown ('last read, errors, warnings, URL counts'), making the tool's function fairly clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like site_overview or inspect_url. The intended context is implied—checking sitemap submission status—but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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