list_sitemaps_enhanced

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the exact GSC property URL requirement and domain property coverage, and explains the sitemap_index behavior. However, it does not disclose what 'detailed information' entails, potential errors, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 and well-structured: the main action is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args section with no redundant text. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers parameter semantics and usage guidance effectively. It misses explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case details, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: site_url with format examples and domain behavior, and sitemap_index with its purpose. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the action ('List all sitemaps') and the resource ('a specific Search Console property') with 'detailed information.' It also mentions the optional sitemap_index for child sitemaps, which adds capability context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_sitemaps or get_sitemap_details, so it lacks sharp sibling distinction.

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 usage context: it advises using the domain property as site_url and filtering by page to analyze a subdomain, and explains when to use sitemap_index to list child sitemaps. It does not state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for typical usage.

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