List sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does add useful behavioral information such as the sitemap status and indexed counts. It does not discuss pagination, error cases, or whether it returns all sitemaps at once. There is no contradiction with annotations since none were provided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, dense sentence that covers the core functionality and the status details. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word adds value. Perfectly 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, an optional one, and no output schema or nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. It provides the key outcome (status with errors and warnings), but might benefit from mentioning that the list is for one property and possibly the return format. However, given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 describes the site_url parameter completely, including the fallback to GSC_SITE_URL. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage, this is acceptable. No additional clarification needed, hence baseline 3.

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: listing sitemaps and their status for a property, with specific attributes (errors, warnings, indexed count). It uses a specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'sitemaps', distinguishing it from siblings like search_analytics_query or inspect_url.

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 when to use it (when needing an overview of sitemap health) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'use inspect_url for a single URL'. The context is clear without being explicit.

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