list_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read and the sentence discloses the payload (status, last download, errors/warnings, indexed URL counts), which is useful. However, it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or whether an unverified property errors out.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, and scope come first, followed by the field list. Efficient, though the trailing field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema is present, so the description's field enumeration is largely redundant, and the omission of usage context and parameter format is the real gap. For a simple one-parameter read tool it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 'site' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies 'site' means 'a property' and gives no expected format (full URL vs. domain vs. property ID), leaving the agent to guess the accepted value shape.

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 specific verb and resource ('List submitted sitemaps for a property') and names the returned fields, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from list_sites, search_analytics, compare_periods, and inspect_url. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite (e.g., the property must already be verified/added), and no mention of which sibling to prefer for other reporting needs. The only signal is the implied 'list' semantics from the name.

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