list_sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the response contains (last submitted/downloaded timestamps, pending state, errors, warnings, URL counts by type), which is real value beyond annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, entry limits, or behavior when the property has no sitemaps.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned fields; nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally clean.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema absent, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It falls short on the relationship to sibling tools and on any volume or pagination expectations, which an agent would need for correct invocation strategy.

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 the site format and the sitemap_index filter documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about the sitemap_index filtering behavior, so the baseline 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 fragment 'Sitemaps submitted for the property' identifies the resource and scope, and the trailing list names the data fields returned, so the agent can infer this is a read/list operation. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from sibling tools such as get_sitemap or queue_from_sitemaps, leaving the agent to guess at the distinction.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent facing a large sibling set including get_sitemap and queue_from_sitemaps gets no help deciding which to call.

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