gsc_list_sitemaps

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It does convey useful behavior—listing submitted sitemaps with status counts and highlighting never-downloaded/error cases—but it doesn't state the read-only nature explicitly, what happens when site_url is omitted, or any property-access requirements.

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: the first sentence names the action, resource, and output; the second adds a useful diagnostic rationale with no repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, return content, and a practical use case. The main gaps are site_url semantics and explicit routing vs gsc_get_sitemap, but these are relatively minor for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not explain site_url beyond referring to 'a property.' It does not clarify URL format, whether it must be a Search Console property, or what null means. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('every sitemap submitted for a property'), and the key output fields (error/warning counts, URL counts). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like gsc_get_sitemap, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives concrete guidance: check this when new pages are not getting indexed, especially for sitemaps that were never downloaded or show errors. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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