search_console_sitemaps_submit

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: mutation (mutates Search Console state), idempotency (PUT not POST), async processing (no synchronous status, results surface later), and required permissions (verified owner/full user). The description discloses the return format and limitations.

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 well-structured with the main action first, followed by details, limitations, and alternatives. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds important information. Slight room for tighter phrasing.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, behavioral traits, async nature, auth requirements, and alternative tools. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the response format, idempotency, and async behavior, but the schema already handles basic parameter meaning.

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 the action (submit a sitemap URL), the specific resource (Search Console), and distinguishes from siblings like search_console_sitemaps_list and search_console_url_inspection_inspect. The verb 'submit' and phrases like 'registers or refreshes' precisely convey the purpose.

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 explicitly provides when to use (to register/refresh sitemap for re-crawling) and when not to (for read-only inspection use search_console_sitemaps_list; for URL diagnostics use search_console_url_inspection_inspect). It also notes idempotency with 'safe to call repeatedly'.

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