gsc_list_sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return structure (fields like path, isPending, errors) and clarifies 'submitted' sitemaps, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss potential errors, rate limits, or verification requirements beyond the annotation-provided safety profile. Given the strong annotations, a mid-score is appropriate.

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 clear one-line purpose, followed by a concise parameter list and a return field breakdown. It front-loads the key information and avoids unnecessary fluff. Slightly verbose due to the full return field enumeration, but this is still efficient and scannable.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It documents the return fields and the input requirement. While it omits error scenarios and explicitly verifying the property, these are minor gaps. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail returns, so overall completeness is good.

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 already provides a detailed description for site_url (including examples), while the tool description only repeats 'The GSC property URL' with less specificity. Since the schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool lists all submitted sitemaps for a verified property. The verb 'list' and resource 'submitted sitemaps' are specific, and the scope is defined. This differentiates from siblings like gsc_get_sitemap (which likely retrieves a single sitemap) and gsc_list_sites (which lists properties).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'verified property'. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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