List sitemaps

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the shape of each returned record (status, errors, warnings, last download time). With no output schema, that payload disclosure is the only thing telling the agent what comes back.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately lists the returned fields. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations already declaring safety, the description covers purpose, scope and return contents adequately. Only the absence of pagination or ordering notes (and any sibling routing) keeps it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the domain vs URL-prefix forms plus the trailing-slash rule and default. The description only alludes to it via 'for the property', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 description names the resource (sitemaps submitted for the property) and enumerates what each entry carries: status, errors, warnings and last download time. Combined with the title it is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with gsc_submit_sitemap or gsc_delete_sitemap, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer that this is the read-side counterpart to gsc_submit_sitemap/gsc_delete_sitemap, but nothing in the text confirms that or states prerequisites.

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