gsc_list_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states that results include processing status and submitted/indexed counts. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, or error behavior, but for a straightforward list operation this is adequate.

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 that names the action, resource, and key output content with no filler. Every word contributes.

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?

This is a simple two-param list operation with fully documented schema and no output schema. The description gives an adequate overview of the return content (status, counts). A slightly richer note on output shape or sibling alternatives would make it fully complete, but nothing critical 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%, and both parameters have descriptive comments. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List sitemaps submitted for a Search Console property' plus what is included (processing status, submitted/indexed counts). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gsc_get_sitemap or gsc_get_sitemap_health.

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 implies its use case: enumerating submitted sitemaps for a property, with optional sitemapIndex for narrowing. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as gsc_get_sitemap or gsc_get_sitemap_health.

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