submit_sitemap

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds little beyond a trivial 'Success message or error details' return statement, and it does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as asynchronous processing or submission limits.

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 extremely concise, with clear labels for Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the basics: action, parameter, and return type. However, it lacks important contextual information such as the need for Google Search Console access setup, potential side effects, or relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for a fully-informed invocation.

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?

The description states 'sitemap_url: Full URL of the sitemap to submit', which adds the meaning that the URL must be a full (absolute) URL, partially clarifying the schema's generic 'string' type. However, the signal indicates zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention constraints like valid formats or allowed protocols, so it does not fully compensate.

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 and resource: 'Submit a sitemap to Google Search Console'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sitemaps and delete_sitemap, which have different actions on the same resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing setup_gsc_access or verifying site ownership. It is a bare description with no contextual usage suggestions.

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