List sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation and notes that only submitted sitemaps are included, but it does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects. The coverage is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the core purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning the return type or that it only returns submitted sitemaps, but for a straightforward list operation, it is largely 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% (siteUrl is well-described as 'The property URL as registered in Search Console'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter explanation, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List all sitemaps') and the scope ('for a Search Console property'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sitemap (singular) and submit/delete sitemap by emphasizing it lists all submitted sitemaps.

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 usage for viewing all submitted sitemaps but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sitemap. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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