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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one addition is the 100-location batch cap, which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations, but nothing is said about what happens beyond that cap, error behavior, or dataset-dependent accuracy.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key constraint. Nothing is padded, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 and the input schema is fully described, so return values and parameter syntax need no elaboration. Still, for a tool whose accuracy depends on the chosen dataset (defaulting to srtm90m), the description gives no hint that dataset selection is a meaningful decision.

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 the schema already documents format, dataset, samples and locations, including the 100-item limit. The description merely restates the locations cap and adds no meaning about dataset choice or sample interpolation.

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?

"Elevation at points" names the resource and the shape of the input (points), so an agent can infer it returns terrain elevation for coordinates. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit distinction from the sibling opentopodata_datasets tool, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only guidance is a capacity constraint ("Up to 100 locations per request"). There is no statement of when to use this versus opentopodata_datasets or other geo/data siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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