google-search-console-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable domain context ('Google Search Console') and relationship context ('submitted'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or error conditions for invalid site URLs.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb ('List'), followed by scope ('all sitemaps'), qualifier ('submitted for a site'), and domain ('Google Search Console'). Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple string parameters, no nesting) and 100% schema coverage with good annotations, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: no output schema exists, so mentioning the return structure (e.g., 'returns array of sitemap metadata') would elevate this to 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both 'account' (optional alias) and 'siteUrl' (required). The description does not mention parameters explicitly, but at high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description focuses on the operation rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'sitemaps' and scope 'submitted for a site in Google Search Console'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts (accounts) and list_sites (sites) by specifying the target resource.

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 usage context (retrieving sitemaps for a specific site), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or differentiation from related tools like inspect_url which also interacts with individual URLs/paths.

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