gsc_get_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Gets detailed information' without specifying what details are returned, whether auth is required, whether it can fail (e.g., sitemap not found), or any rate-limit implications. For a read tool this is a moderate gap, but the description does not actively mislead.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core action and object. No filler or redundant repetition. It is appropriately compact for a simple read operation, though it lacks valuable specifics that could be added without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotation coverage, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' means to help an agent know what to expect. The two parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the tool is relatively simple, but the vague phrase leaves a notable gap. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions ('Site URL' and 'Full URL of the sitemap'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that feedpath identifies the specific sitemap being fetched. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('detailed information about a specific sitemap'), clearly distinguishing it from gsc_list_sitemaps by the word 'specific'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with seo_sitemap_analyze, which could also be seen as analyzing sitemap details, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a Google Search Console property), no stated preference over gsc_list_sitemaps or seo_sitemap_analyze, and no exclusion criteria. The usage context is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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