List submitted sitemaps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned information (download time, warnings, errors, per-type counts). No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data compactly. It contains no filler and every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has one required parameter fully covered by the schema, and although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the key return elements. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already fully documents the siteUrl parameter with format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'the property', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Shows every sitemap submitted for the property' and details the output fields (last download time, warnings, errors, per-type URL counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_properties 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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs submitted sitemaps and their status for a property. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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