gsc_list_sitemaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return values (paths, types, dates, errors/warnings), which is useful, but it does not mention prerequisites such as site verification/auth, potential rate limits, or failure modes. This is a typical read operation, but the lack of such context leaves a gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return content. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema) and the description's mention of return fields, the description is fairly complete. However, it could have noted that the site_url must be a verified property in GSC, which is a relevant prerequisite for usage. This slight omission prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter site_url, which is described as 'Site URL as registered in GSC'. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond that, except for implying the sitemaps are submitted for that site. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a baseline of 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's purpose: listing all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console, and specifies the return content (paths, types, dates, errors/warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites, which list sites, and gsc_search_analytics, which handles search analytics.

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 clear context that the tool is for listing sitemaps of a specific site, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or indicate any exclusions. Given the specificity of the tool name and description, usage is implied; however, no direct guidance on choosing this vs sibling tools is provided.

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