Submit several sitemaps

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the underlying API has no batch method and calls are made sequentially, per-entry results are reported, and one failure does not stop the rest. This is valuable implementation context the annotations cannot convey.

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, all high-signal: the core capability is front-loaded, the batch limit is stated immediately, and the sequential execution detail is explained without excess. No filler words or redundant restatements of the schema.

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?

Given rich parameter descriptions, a complete output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description covers all additional operational context an agent needs: concurrency behavior, failure isolation, and practical use case. Nothing critical 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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('submits'), a resource ('sitemaps for one property'), a clear scope (up to 50 in a single call), and a distinguishing behavior (per-entry success/failure reporting). It clearly differentiates from the singular submit_sitemap sibling without needing to name it.

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 to use this tool: when submitting many sitemaps, since it saves a round trip per sitemap and makes large sites practical. It does not explicitly name submit_sitemap as the alternative for a single sitemap, leaving that comparison implicit.

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