Get one sitemap

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, framing the operation as a fetch. It goes beyond annotations by adding the important caveat that indexed counts are under-reported by Google and should be treated as a lower bound. This gives the agent useful reliability context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the operation and the returned fields, and the second adds a high-value caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing the key fields returned and adding the data-reliability caveat. It may not describe error behavior or exact response formatting, but for a simple read-only fetch tool with rich schema descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.

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 richly documented in the schema: siteUrl explains URL-prefix vs domain properties, and feedpath gives an example and requires a path from list_sitemaps. The description adds little to parameter understanding beyond referencing 'per content type,' which relates more to the output than the inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch details') and resource ('a single submitted sitemap'), then enumerates exactly what information is returned: submission/download times, processing state, type, and submitted vs indexed URL counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sitemaps (listing), submit_sitemap (creating), and delete_sitemap (removing).

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 phrase 'single submitted sitemap' implies this is for retrieving details about one already-submitted sitemap, and the schema requires feedpath to match a path from list_sitemaps. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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