Search Console: sitemap

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description need not restate that. It does add useful context by naming the fields returned (last download date, errors, warnings, submitted URLs), which matters since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination, sitemap-index expansion, or the behavior when no sitemaps exist.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated efficiently. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, and the Italian phrasing carries no structural waste.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and what fields come back. It is not fully complete (no guidance on result shape or empty results), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single siteUrl parameter, and the schema already documents both the accepted formats and the default-property fallback. The description's reference to 'la proprietà' aligns with the parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (sitemaps submitted to the property) and enumerates the data returned (last download date, errors, warnings, submitted URLs), which separates it from siblings like gsc_list_sites or gsc_inspect_url. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and is written in Italian while the tool name and siblings are English, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsc_list_sites (sites vs. sitemaps) or gsc_inspect_url, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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