Geospatial System — Location Profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. It doesn't provide additional details like authentication or pagination, but for a simple list operation, this is adequately transparent.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers its purpose and scope. Sibling tools make the use case evident, and no additional details are needed for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description's focus on the listing behavior is sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all available elevation datasets') and context ('on the Geospatial System server'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific elevation data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 discovering available datasets before selecting a specific data retrieval tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context of sibling tools focused on retrieval makes the usage context clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the output unit ('metres') and tier availability, which are useful. However, it does not disclose potential errors, coordinate bounds, or data source details, which would be expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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, no redundant phrasing, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, from the verb to the coordinate qualifier to the access note.

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 a simple single-point elevation query, with a rich schema (100% param descriptions) and an output schema available. The description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and accessibility, making it complete for decision-making. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, but that is covered under usage guidelines.

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%, with each parameter (lat, lon, dataset_id) already described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get the elevation in metres at a specific lat/lon coordinate.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource (elevation), and specifies the scope ('specific lat/lon'), distinguishing it from siblings like Batch, Chart, and Stats.

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 a single-point query via 'specific lat/lon coordinate,' contrasting with batch/statistical siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The tier availability note ('Available on all tiers including Free') is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 100-point limit and input format but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or output structure. The 'get' verb implies read-only, and an output schema exists, but behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the primary purpose and then give the necessary input format. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, input shape, batch limit, and tier availability. Since an output schema exists, not describing return fields is acceptable. It doesn't address edge cases like exceeding 100 points, but the core usage is clear.

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 input schema already defines 'queries' as a list of point dicts with lat, lon, dataset_id. The description adds a concrete JSON example and the 100-point cap, providing meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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 tool's function: 'Get elevation for up to 100 points in one call.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the batch limitation distinguishes it from sibling LP_Get_Elevation, which likely handles a single point.

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?

'In one call' implies use for multiple elevations in a single request, and 'Available on all tiers including Free' provides access context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool requires a Pro key, returns a URL to a chart image, and supports PNG/SVG/PDF. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not detail error handling or data source 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?

The description is three concise sentences, immediately stating the core function before supplementary details. No redundant or verbose wording.

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 simple tool signature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, return format, tool-specific requirements, and output formats. It lacks specifics about the chart axes or window size definitions, but these are less critical for invocation.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of PNG/SVG/PDF duplicates the fmt parameter's schema description and adds no new parameter meaning.

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 tool generates a range-box chart of elevation statistics (Min/Avg/Max) across three window sizes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch elevation values, stats, or other chart types.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this chart over other elevation tools. It mentions a Pro key requirement, but no 'use this when...' guidance, so usage context is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the license requirement ('Requires Pro or Enterprise key'), directly states the computed statistics (Min, Average, Max) and window sizes, and the verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite.

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 simple tool (3 well-schema'd params, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it computes, the window sizes, and the license requirement. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (lat, lon, dataset_id). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool retrieves elevation statistics (Min, Average, Max) for specific window sizes (3×3, 5×5, 7×7), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like LP_Get_Elevation (single point) and LP_Get_Slope_Stats (slope vs elevation stats).

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 statistical elevation queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention alternatives. The only explicit note is the license requirement ('Requires Pro or Enterprise key'), which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add valuable behavioral context: 'Requires Pro key' alerts to access restrictions, 'Returns a URL' explains the output mechanism, and 'Supports PNG / SVG / PDF' discloses format flexibility. It also mentions 'three neighbourhood window sizes,' which hints at the chart's internal structure. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey the tool's core function, return value, access requirement, and supported formats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, return type, access prerequisite, and output formats. Since an output schema exists, the return values are already structured, and the description appropriately supplements with non-schema information. It could mention error conditions or more chart details, but it is not a significant 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 100%, and the schema already documents all four parameters (lat, lon, dataset_id, fmt) with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a range-box chart showing terrain slope Min/Avg/Max across three neighbourhood window sizes.' It specifies the resource (terrain slope), the chart type (range-box), and the return type (URL to chart image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like LP_Get_Slope_Stats, which likely return raw statistics.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as LP_Get_Elevation_Chart or LP_Get_Terrain_Map. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output units (degrees), the three window sizes, WGS-84 correction, and the Pro key requirement. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the read-oriented nature is implicit and no contradiction exists.

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 that packs purpose, units, window sizes, coordinate correction, and licensing without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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 (3 parameters, all described in schema) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description provides all essential operational context: what is computed, units, scales, coordinate correction, and access requirement. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so each parameter (lat, lon, dataset_id) already has meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little new parameter-specific detail beyond confirming WGS-84, which the schema already includes. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: obtaining terrain slope statistics with explicit metrics (Min, Average, Max) in degrees and window sizes (3×3, 5×5, 7×7). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like LP_Get_Elevation_Stats and LP_Get_Slope_Chart.

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 slope statistics retrieval, and the 'Requires Pro key' line provides a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, offering only implied context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the output is a Plotly go.Surface, colored by elevation, with a red spike pin for the query location, and supports PNG/HTML. It also states the Pro key requirement. This is sufficient for a read-only map tool, though it does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or rate limits.

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 that conveys the core purpose and key details (Plotly go.Surface, elevation coloring, red spike pin, Pro key, PNG/HTML). No wasted words.

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 description covers the essential purpose, output type, formats, and access requirement. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed. The tool is simple and the schema covers parameter constraints, so this is adequately complete for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of semantic context (e.g., the red spike pin marks the query location, connecting lat/lon to behavior), but it does not explain parameter constraints or formats beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding substantial value.

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 'Generate a 3-D perspective terrain surface map' with specific output details (Plotly go.Surface, colored by elevation, red spike pin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like LP_Get_Terrain_Map (likely 2D) and LP_Get_Elevation_Chart (profile chart).

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 when to use this tool—when a 3D perspective terrain surface is needed—and notes the Pro key requirement. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 3D-specific language and sibling context provide clear guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: a Pro key is required, and all layers are reprojected to EPSG:3857 to avoid overlay mismatch. However, it does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or behavior when the Pro key is absent. For a read-only map generator, this is moderate transparency.

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: the first lists the map components, the second adds projection and licensing constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers purpose, key components, projection consistency, licensing requirement, and supported output format. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. It is complete for a map-generation tool, though it could mention use cases or limitations.

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 covers 100% of the 6 parameters with clear descriptions (lat/lon in decimal degrees, offset half-window, n_arrows grid density, dataset_id, fmt). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Generate a composite terrain map' and enumerates the specific layers (Google Hybrid satellite, smoothed contours with labels, flow-direction arrows, location pin). This clearly articulates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like LP_Get_Terrain_3D and elevation/slope chart 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?

The description implies usage—you would invoke this when you need a composite terrain map—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools. No guidance is given about choosing between map, 3D, or chart variants.

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