gsc_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'this tool is read-only' and explains scope limitations. The output structure is fully documented (path, lastSubmitted, lastDownloaded, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's behavior or return format.

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 well-structured with a clear verb-first sentence, a usage block, a note about read-only, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. Despite the detail, it remains concise.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description goes beyond necessity by detailing the return fields and usage context. It provides complete guidance for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior, and limitations, making it fully contextual.

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 has a single required parameter 'site_url' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the format: 'Domain property format "sc-domain:example.com" or URL-prefix format "https://example.com/".' This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all sitemaps submitted for a property, with errors/warnings and timestamps.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., gsc_performance_overview, gsc_inspect_url) by focusing on sitemap listing and audit details.

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 description provides clear when-to-use scenarios: 'Use this to check which sitemaps Google knows about... Useful for auditing sitemap hygiene before crawl-budget work or to confirm a newly submitted sitemap was picked up.' It also explicitly states when not to use it: 'Submitting or deleting sitemaps requires the webmasters (read-write) scope, which this server intentionally does not request.' This offers excellent guidance against misuse.

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