Submit a sitemap

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses that Google re-crawls on its own schedule, the old ping endpoint is gone, success only means the URL was accepted, and validity is checked later. These are valuable non-obvious behaviors with no annotation contradiction.

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?

Four sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by only high-value caveats. No repetition of schema content or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description fully covers behavioral caveats, resubmission semantics, scheduling limitations, and how to observe errors later. 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%, so the schema already documents feedpath and site_url with formats and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 action ('Submits a sitemap URL, or resubmits one Google already knows') and names the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling submit_sitemaps, though its singular wording implies a single 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?

It gives explicit resubmission guidance ('submit the same URL again... no separate update call, and submitting is idempotent'), states a limitation ('nothing can force it'), and points to get_sitemap as the place where parse errors surface. This tells an agent when and how to use the tool and what not to expect.

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