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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the 50-point cap; it does not state that the operation is read-only/no side effects, nor does it explain auth/subscriber requirements, rate limits, or error 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?

One short purpose sentence plus 'PRO.' is front-loaded and low-waste. The unexplained 'PRO.' keeps it from perfect 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 simple two-parameter read, the schema covers the required points array and token, and the description supplies the batch limit and coordinate type. But with no annotations or output schema, it omits return shape, auth/subscriber context, and sibling routing, leaving clear gaps.

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 50%: points is an untyped array of objects, while access_token is described in the schema. The description adds lat/lon meaning and a max of 50 for points, but does not specify the item object keys or coordinate order, so it only partly compensates.

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 elevation and a batch scope of up to 50 lat/lon points, which distinguishes it from the single-point elevation sibling and path_profile. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, and the leading 'PRO.' is unexplained.

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 'up to 50 points' limit implies this is the multi-point option, but the description never says when to prefer elevation or path_profile, nor when this tool is inappropriate.

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