list_sitemaps

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that a stop in lastDownloaded indicates Google is no longer reading the sitemap, which is not obvious from the UI or schema.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and return fields, and the second adds a genuinely useful diagnostic insight without 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 read-only list tool, the description tells the agent what data will be returned and even highlights a non-obvious way to interpret it. Combined with the thorough parameter schema and safety annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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%, and each parameter is already explained in detail, including site formats, the account default, and sitemap_index filtering. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('sitemaps submitted for a property') and spells out the returned fields: last download time, URL counts per content type, and warnings/errors. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sitemap, submit_sitemap, and delete_sitemap.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful, especially the diagnostic signal of a stalled lastDownloaded date. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the list-focused purpose is unambiguous.

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