get_sitemap_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds some useful context about what information is returned (errors, warnings, content breakdown), but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid/unknown sitemap_url.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, followed by a compact Args block. Every line carries information; only minor waste is the 'Args:' formatting of what could be a single sentence.

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?

Output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required, and both parameters are addressed. For a two-param, annotation-rich read tool this is essentially complete; only edge-case behavior (missing/invalid sitemap) is absent.

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 carry the parameter burden — and it does reasonably well: site_url is described as the exact property with a GSC_SITE_URL default, and sitemap_url as the full sitemap URL. It doesn't explain the interaction between the two or the empty-string default for sitemap_url, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Details for one sitemap') and enumerates the fields returned (type, processing status, timestamps, errors, warnings, content breakdown). The word 'one' implicitly differentiates it from the plural listing siblings (get_sitemaps, list_sitemaps_enhanced), though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied: the parameter docs indicate you supply an exact sitemap URL to drill into a single entry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_sitemaps / list_sitemaps_enhanced guidance, nor any note on fallback behavior when sitemap_url is omitted (its default is an empty string).

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