gsc track sitemap deltas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the comparison mechanism and explicitly states 'no state is written,' which reinforces the safety profile beyond the annotations alone. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the read-only nature, the core operation, and the key constraint without redundancy.

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?

Given rich annotations, an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and zero required parameters, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No critical behavioral or usage information 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds the useful notion of an 'agent-provided baseline' and ties it to 'this tool's snapshot output,' but this is minor additional value 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it fetches the current sitemap snapshot and compares it to an agent-provided baseline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sitemap tools like gsc_list_sitemaps or gsc_get_sitemap, which list or fetch sitemaps but do not compute deltas.

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 purpose makes the usage context clear: use this when a previous sitemap snapshot exists and you need to detect changes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the baseline comparison concept is specific enough to route the agent correctly.

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