gsc_get_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals read-only intent ('Get') and discloses that the response includes warnings/errors and fetch state, which tells the agent the tool surfaces problem states rather than only success data. It does not cover error/404 behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a read-oriented fetch this is an adequate baseline.

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 24-word sentence in which every element earns its place: scope ('one'), status ('submitted'), lookup key ('full feed path'), and the response content list. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a low-complexity fetch tool with both parameters fully documented, and the missing output schema is partially compensated by enumerating the response fields. It does not clarify the relationship to gsc_get_itemap_health (which likely overlaps on fetch state and warnings/errors) or reference the list-then-fetch workflow with gsc_list_itemaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that feedpath is the primary lookup key and that the sitemap must have been submitted, though the schema already says 'exactly as submitted to Search Console,' so the description adds little meaning beyond the structured parameter docs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one submitted sitemap'), and the lookup mechanism ('by full feed path'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from sibling gsc_list_sitemaps, and the enumerated response contents (type, fetch state, warnings/errors, totals) make its scope unmistakable.

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 phrase 'by full feed path' implies a necessary precondition — the agent must already know the exact submitted URL, otherwise enumeration via gsc_list_sitemaps would be required first. However, no sibling tools are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated; usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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