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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the 50-point cap. It says nothing about the auth requirement (an access_token param exists in the schema), whether excess points are truncated or rejected, or what the response contains for a path (elevation-only vs. distance/gain).

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 terse fragments, no wasted words, but the leading 'PRO.' is an unexplained token that occupies the most prominent position without conveying anything actionable to the agent.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns and call behavior; it instead leaves the point object shape, auth flow, and response structure entirely unstated for a 2-parameter geo tool.

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 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while 'points' is an undescribed array of objects. The description partially compensates by stating the points are ordered and capped at 50, but the item shape (lat/lng? elevation refs?) remains undocumented.

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?

States a concrete resource and shape: elevations for up to 50 ordered points, i.e. a path profile. The word 'ordered' implicitly separates it from batch_elevation and the single-point 'elevation', but the sibling distinction is only implied via the parenthetical rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to pick this over batch_elevation or elevation; the agent must infer that 'ordered' points forming a route means path_profile. 'PRO' hints at a paid-tier gate but is never explained, so it functions as noise rather than guidance.

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