submit_sitemap

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It does: resubmission refreshes rather than duplicates and does not delete anything, which directly reinforces the idempotency guarantee in human terms. It stops short of disclosing failure modes (invalid/unauthorized sitemap) or rate limits, so it isn't a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose, when-to-use, and sibling routing. No filler, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the action, the trigger, idempotency/refresh behavior, and the two adjacent tools. No output schema exists, but for a submit-and-acknowledge operation that is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100%, with both siteUrl and feedpath thoroughly described (including the sc-domain: format). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (sitemap URL) plus the target system (Google Search Console), and explains the effect: 'so Google can discover the pages of that property.' This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like delete_sitemap and get_sitemap_details.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger scenario ('when the user has published or moved a sitemap and asks to file it') and routes the agent to both relevant alternatives: delete_sitemap to withdraw, get_sitemap_details to verify processing. Nothing is left to inference.

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