gsc_get_sitemaps

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes output (status, error counts, indexed URLs) but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond property format.

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?

Two sentences and a bullet list, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every line provides value.

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?

Single parameter is well-documented. Output is described in the first sentence. Lacks explicit return format or error info, but sufficient for a list tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description explains the site_url parameter format and source (from gsc_list_properties). Provides crucial context beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool lists all sitemaps for a GSC property with submission status, error/warning counts, and indexed URL totals. Distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_compare_search_periods and gsc_get_performance_overview.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (monitoring crawl health, finding sitemap errors, etc.). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are clear.

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