gsc_get_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool returns submitted and indexed counts, which conveys it finds an operation that reads sitemap status. However, it doesn't disclose auth needs, rate limits, or how the optional site_url affects behavior, and it doesn't explicitly confirm the call is non-destructive beyond the wording 'get/detail'.

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 main purpose is stated in one front-loaded sentence, and the parameter note adds a concrete example without extra prose. It is tight and efficient, though the argument block could be cleaner integration with the rest of the description. Earning its place with mostly no waste.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and only one required parameter, so the description is acceptable for basic invocation. But it leaves the second parameter (site_url) undefined and says nothing about error cases or permission requirements, which an agent may need to know to call the tool correctly in all contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter docs. It documents feedpath with a concrete example, which adds value, but ignores the entirely optional site_url parameter, leaving its meaning and context undocumented. This is only partial compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 this tool provides detail for a single sitemap, including per-content-type submitted and indexed counts. This distinguishes it naturally from siblings like gsc_list_sitemaps, which lists sitemaps, and from submit/delete operations, because it's scoped to retrieving detail for one specific sitemap.

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 phrase 'Detail for one sitemap' implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single sitemap by feedpath, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over gsc_list_sitemaps, how to discover a feedpath, or any exclusions or prerequisites, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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