get_sitemap

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild qualifying context that the sitemap must be a 'submitted' one; it says nothing about permission requirements on the property, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown sitemap_url. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the scope qualifier ('one submitted') is front-loaded. Its brevity shades into under-specification rather than verbosity, but as a structural matter it is clean and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what 'details' are returned (last download, errors, warnings, submitted URL count), leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.

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 100%, with both 'site' (three accepted formats) and 'sitemap_url' (full URL) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, matching, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a sitemap) and its scope ('one submitted'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_sitemaps that returns many. The verb is weak ('Details of') rather than an explicit 'Get', and no sibling is named, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied: the singular 'one submitted sitemap' plus the required sitemap_url suggests calling this when you already know which sitemap you want, versus listing them first. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of list_sitemaps as the alternative, and no note that the sitemap must already have been submitted to the property.

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