gsc_list_sitemaps

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds meaningful behavior: feedpath changes the response shape from a list to a single object, sitemap_index filters results, and each entry's fields are disclosed. This goes well beyond the structured 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 description is compact and well-organized with a front-loaded summary, bullet-style parameter explanations, and a concise return contract. No sentence is wasted and every clause adds operational detail.

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 three-parameter tool with two optional modes, the description covers all behaviors, return types, and entry fields. Combined with the output schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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 0%, but the description fully defines each parameter: site_url as the Search Console property, sitemap_index as the sitemap-index URL whose children are listed, and feedpath as the exact sitemap URL to fetch. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'List sitemaps on a site' or 'fetch one sitemap by feedpath.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites, which lists sites, and query tools, by anchoring on sitemap operations.

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 mode-based guidance: use sitemap_index to list children of an index, use feedpath to fetch a single sitemap, and omit both for the full list. It also notes that this tool absorbs the prior get_sitemap tool. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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