List sitemaps

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: listing is passive, Google re-crawls on its own schedule, nothing can force it, and the old ping endpoint is gone. This prevents an agent from expecting or attempting side effects and clarifies the meaning of the status information returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and delivers the core purpose. The second and third sentences add useful related context about idempotent submission and crawl scheduling, but they are slightly tangential to the listing operation itself and could arguably live in the submit_sitemap description. Still, the text is compact and free of filler.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only listing tool. It explains what is listed, what details are included, and sets expectations about recrawl behavior. With full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, 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 both site_url and sitemap_index already have clear, detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool lists sitemaps submitted for a property and enumerates the key returned details (last download time, URL counts per content type, warnings/errors). It distinguishes this from sibling operations like submit_sitemap or get_sitemap by emphasizing the list/submitted scope.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when you need to see submitted sitemaps and their processing status. It also implicitly steers agents away from trying to force a recrawl or find a separate update call, mentioning that submission is idempotent and Google controls the crawl schedule. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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