list_sites

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already tell the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'sitemap metadata and processing status,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like whether the list is paginated, whether it includes only submitted sitemaps or also discovered ones, or whether it requires specific permissions. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieves the list of all sitemaps') and then adds relevant detail ('including sitemap metadata and processing status'). There is no wasted wording, and every part of the sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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's simplicity, the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (sitemap list with metadata and status) and the scope (for a site). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that this is for checking existing sitemaps rather than submitting new ones, but the sibling list and the verb 'Retrieves' make that clear. A 4 is appropriate because it is complete for a simple read tool, but not perfect due to the lack of explicit usage guidance.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema_description_coverage, meaning the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'for a site' which likely maps to a site identifier parameter, but this is not explicit. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate further.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the list of all sitemaps submitted for a site, including sitemap metadata and processing status.' It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of all sitemaps'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'submit_sitemap' and 'request_indexing' by focusing on retrieval of sitemap data. The mention of 'submitted for a site' adds context that it is site-scoped, which helps an agent understand its role.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves sitemaps for a site, which is a clear context for when to use it (when you need to see submitted sitemaps or their status). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes 'submit_sitemap' and 'request_indexing', which are clearly different actions. The description could be improved by explicitly saying 'Use this to check sitemap status, not to submit or request indexing,' but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to infer the correct usage.

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