webmaster_get_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful distinction between a detected sitemap and a submitted registration, which is genuine context, but says nothing about return shape, auth scope, or rate behavior.

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?

A single short sentence, so nothing is padded, but the 'or' construction makes it ambiguous and under-specified rather than economical. Front-loading 'read' is fine; the rest needs a clarifying rewrite.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent unable to choose between this and the several sibling list/get tools, which is the core gap.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It gestures at 'detected' vs 'submitted' sitemaps, which loosely maps to the user_added boolean, but never states what host_id/sitemap_id refer to, what user_added=true selects, or what the default false means.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('get sitemap'), but the phrasing 'Read detected sitemap details or registration of a submitted sitemap' conflates two modes and never distinguishes this tool from siblings like webmaster_list_sitemaps, webmaster_list_user_sitemaps, or webmaster_get_feed. An agent can guess it retrieves one sitemap's details but not why it beats the list tools.

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?

No when-to-use, no exclusions, no named alternatives. The only implicit context is that it takes both host_id and sitemap_id, hinting it is for a single known sitemap, but an agent must infer this from the schema rather than the description.

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