gsc_get_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description goes beyond by detailing the return payload: 'JSON with sitemap details including path, status, content counts, warnings, and errors,' giving the agent insight into what to expect. This adds valuable behavioral context about the operation's output without contradicting 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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise Args section with bullet points for each parameter, and a Returns section. All content earns its place with no fluff or repetition. The format is scannable and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with a single nested parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. It could optionally mention permissions or an example, but given the annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the straightforward nature of the operation, the description is sufficiently complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit connection to sibling tools for workflow context, but it is not necessary for a basic getter.

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 input schema provides descriptions for the inner fields site_url and feedpath, though the outer 'params' parameter itself has no description (schema coverage 0% at top level). The tool description lists both parameters and clarifies site_url as 'The GSC property URL' and feedpath as 'Full URL of the sitemap,' offering slightly more explicit semantics than the schema's 'Site URL as it appears in GSC.' However, this is largely redundant with the schema's field descriptions, so the added meaning is marginal. 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 opens with 'Get details for a specific submitted sitemap,' clearly stating the verb ('Get'), resource ('sitemap'), and scope ('specific'). This distinguishes it from sibling gsc_list_sitemaps, which would list all sitemaps, and from gsc_inspect_url or gsc_search_analytics. The title 'Get Sitemap Details' aligns perfectly, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context by focusing on a 'specific submitted sitemap' and requiring both site_url and feedpath, which signals it is for retrieving details of one known sitemap. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like gsc_list_sitemaps for enumeration, but the clear context ('specific') provides sufficient guidance for selection among siblings. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions, hence not a 5.

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