get_sitemaps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only explains the site_url argument and says 'list all sitemaps', but does not mention return format, possible errors, rate limits, or whether it includes submitted vs. detected sitemaps. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably queries a service.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose plus an Args section. The formatting is clean and easy to scan. The guidance about domain properties is useful and not redundant. It earns its keep without bloat.

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 there is an output schema (not shown) and only one parameter, the description covers the key usage point. However, the lack of distinction from sibling tools such as list_sitemaps_enhanced leaves a completeness gap. A brief 'use this instead of X when...' would make it more complete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes a detailed Args section that explains site_url with examples and clarifies the semantics of domain properties. This fully compensates for the schema gap, going beyond what the JSON schema provides.

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 action: 'List all sitemaps for a specific Search Console property.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions the property scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_sitemaps_enhanced', so it misses the sibling differentiation part.

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 some implied usage context: it tells users to supply an exact property URL and explains the difference between domain and URL-prefix properties. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sitemaps_enhanced or get_sitemap_details, and provides no exclusion criteria.

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