gsc_get_sitemap

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations but adds little beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence that is direct and free of redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the basic purpose and is consistent with annotations, but it lacks details on what 'details' includes and provides no explanation of the feedpath parameter. Given the absence of an output schema and the schema's partial coverage, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 schema describes siteUrl but not feedpath (50% coverage), and the description does not clarify either parameter. The meaning of feedpath remains ambiguous, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's gap.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get details'), the resource ('one submitted sitemap'), and the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps which lists sitemaps. It is a precise and unambiguous statement.

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 implies use for retrieving a single sitemap's details but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or usage context. The distinction from listing tools is implied but not named.

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