gsc get sitemap health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and mutation profile. The description adds modest behavioral context by saying the result is 'enriched' and listing what it contains, but it does not describe data source behavior, freshness, or aggregation semantics beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key output categories without filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and protective annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the result type and the main dimensions of the health summary, and the explicit 'sitemap health' wording disambiguates it from more general health-check siblings.

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 only parameter, siteUrl, is fully documented in the schema with examples and the GSC_SITE_URL fallback, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the burden.

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 names a specific resource ('sitemap health summary') and a concrete verb ('Return'), and enumerates distinctive contents: status totals, submitted/indexed counts, warnings, and errors. This separates it from sibling list/get sitemap tools and makes the tool's job immediately clear.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'sitemap health summary,' so an agent must infer that this tool is for aggregated sitemap health/status summaries rather than raw sitemap listing or a general health check.

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