gsc_list_sitemaps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that by revealing that the tool surfaces undownloaded sitemaps and reports warning/error counts, which helps the agent interpret the results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first identifies the tool's core action and result fields; the second adds practical diagnostic value. Information is front-loaded and there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. However, the one input parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent unsure how to specify the property. This is a clear completeness gap for a tool with a single important argument.

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 has one parameter, site_url, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'for a property' and never explains that site_url is the property identifier, what format it should take, or whether it is required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the sitemaps submitted for a property.' It further specifies the output content (last downloaded date, warnings, errors), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_list_sites or gsc_submit_sitemap.

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 clear diagnostic context: a sitemap never downloaded by Google or one with errors is likely the answer to 'why isn't this indexed.' This tells the agent when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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