List Sitemaps

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

The annotations already declare this a read-only operation, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned data categories (status, submission date, error/warning counts, URLs submitted vs indexed) and by instructing the agent to avoid speculation and report exact numbers, which meaningfully shapes how the tool output should be used.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The additional warning sentences are directly valuable for correct use of the tool's output and do not feel redundant or padded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description conveys the main return contents and cautions against over-interpreting data. It does not provide a full field-by-field schema of the response, but it covers what an agent needs to call and interpret the tool effectively.

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%: the single parameter siteUrl is already documented with its fallback behavior. The description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 names the action ('List all sitemaps submitted for a site in Search Console') and specifies the resource and scope. It is obvious from the sibling tool names that this is a read/list operation rather than submit or delete, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a listing of submitted sitemaps and their status counts is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like submit_sitemap or delete_sitemap would be more appropriate.

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