Get sitemap details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read operation, and the parenthetical lists what the response will contain, but it does not mention error behavior for unsubmitted or invalid URLs, authentication requirements, or the fact that siteUrl has a default fallback. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal on behavioral nuance.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and immediately lists the relevant response aspects. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target resource, the required input, and the expected response contents. It could mention behavior for missing or invalid sitemaps, but the existing description covers the main calling context adequately.

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%, with siteUrl documented as 'Falls back to GSC_DEFAULT_SITE' and feedpath documented as 'Sitemap URL, e.g. https://www.example.com/sitemap.xml'. The tool description reinforces that the target must be a single submitted sitemap but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one submitted sitemap'), and the exact kind of details returned ('status, contents, errors/warnings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps, which would handle multiple sitemaps, and gsc_submit_sitemap/gsc_delete_sitemap, which perform different actions.

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 phrase 'one submitted sitemap' implies the tool is for retrieving details about a single existing sitemap, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over gsc_list_sitemaps or what to do if the sitemap has not been submitted. Usage context is present but only implied, not stated as a positive or negative rule.

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