gsc_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Lista' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key behavioral trait here, but the description says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the verified property. Adequate for a trivial read but leaves gaps.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it borders on being too terse for the information an agent might want.

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 with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any hint of what the response contains (sitemap URLs, statuses, last-download times), which would help an agent decide whether this tool answers its question.

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% and there is only one parameter (siteUrl), whose schema description already explains it is the exact URL of the verified property. The description's phrase 'de una propiedad' merely restates that, adding no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Lista los sitemaps de una propiedad de Google Search Console.' An agent can distinguish this from bing_sitemaps by the GSC scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from its close sibling gsc_sitemap_details, which would fetch detail for a single sitemap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a verified GSC property), and no routing to alternatives such as gsc_sitemap_details or gsc_list_sites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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