list_sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the qualifier "submitted" — implying it returns sitemaps submitted via Search Console rather than all discovered sitemaps — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether entries include status/last-downloaded metadata.

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 definition is a single front-loaded phrase with zero filler, which is efficient. Its brevity, however, edges into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 tool whose only parameter is undocumented and which has no output schema, the description should at minimum state the identifier format for "site" and what a listed sitemap record contains. Neither is present, so the agent cannot call it confidently.

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 single required parameter "site" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what form it takes (bare domain, full URL, or Search Console property identifier like sc-domain:example.com). With no compensating detail, the agent is left guessing at the most error-prone part of the call.

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?

"List submitted sitemaps" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (sitemaps), and the word "submitted" narrows the scope meaningfully. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as list_sites, which an agent could plausibly confuse with sitemap enumeration.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_sites or inspect_url, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the site must be verified in Search Console) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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