submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: the call returns immediately, Google fetches the sitemap on its own schedule, and no counts are returned. This async caveat is exactly the kind of context agents need.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most decision-relevant caveats: uniqueness, async behavior, and the correct follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the response will not contain and what will happen afterward, which is the most likely source of confusion. It also names get_sitemap as the verification path. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool's description text does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already thoroughly documents site property shapes, account selection, and sitemap_url constraints. No deduction is warranted, and there is no extra value to credit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit or resubmit a sitemap.' It immediately distinguishes the tool by stating it is 'the only way the API can ask Google to recrawl anything' and contrasts it with get_sitemap, making its unique role unmistakable.

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 explicit usage context: resubmit after publishing when recrawling is needed. It also tells the agent what not to expect and which alternative to use for verification: 'read the result back with get_sitemap rather than expecting counts here.' This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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