Submit sitemap

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, and the description is consistent with them ('submits or resubmits' matches idempotentHint=true, and nothing implies destruction). It adds useful context about the external effect on Google's index and the absence of an indexing-request API, though it says nothing about quotas, propagation delay, or error conditions.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its effect first, then a targeted caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers what the tool does, when to reach for it, and a key misconception. Only minor gaps remain, such as expected response or rate limits.

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 siteUrl and sitemapUrl documented including formats and examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; 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?

States a specific verb (submits/resubmits) and resource (sitemap) plus the downstream effect ('so Google re-reads it'). It is clearly distinguishable from list_sitemaps and audit_sitemap, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('e.g. after fixing canonical or URL problems') and pre-empts a common misuse by noting there is no API for the 'Request indexing' button. It does not, however, point to alternatives such as indexnow_submit or inspect_url when a full re-read is not wanted.

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