Sitemap status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; it does not submit or change sitemaps'. It also discloses what data the call returns, which matters because no output schema is present. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a safe list operation the annotations carry the key safety burden.

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 short sentences, with the main action and output components front-loaded, followed by use case and safety note. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 list operation, the description is complete: it names the resource, the values returned, when to use it, and the fact that it does not mutate sitemaps. The schema covers the only input, and the annotation profile covers safety, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The single required parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including accepted formats and a helpful pointer to list_sites for verification. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the sitemaps submitted for the site in Search Console', and enumerates the returned status fields (last-read time, errors, warnings, URL count). The line 'Use for indexing questions about many pages at once' further distinguishes it from single-page or site-overview sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly gives a usage context: indexing questions about many pages at once, which helps an agent decide between this and page-level tools like inspect_url or page_check. It does not name specific alternatives or state 'when not to use', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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