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 sampling algorithm ('evenly'), the data source (Kartverket DTM), and the computed returns (total distance, ascent, descent). It stops short of stating units (meters) or edge-case behavior, but for a read-only geodata tool this is meaningful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returns, followed by use case and a parameter pointer. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description explains what the agent receives (profile plus distance, ascent, descent) and the input ordering. Complete enough to call correctly; units and the exact profile structure are left unspecified, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%: path is described as ordered vertices with the path sampled evenly between them, and samples as the number of evenly spaced points. The description's 'give the path vertices in order; `samples` controls resolution' largely restates schema content, adding only the framing that samples maps to resolution.

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 specific verb ('Sample'), resource ('terrain elevation along a path of coordinates'), and outcome ('return the profile plus total distance, ascent, and descent'), and cites the Kartverket DTM data source. The path/profile framing clearly distinguishes this from sibling get_elevation, which is presumably 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?

'Useful for hikes and routes' gives an intended use case, and 'Give the path vertices in order' clarifies input handling. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with get_elevation or states when not to use it, leaving the tool-selection decision to inference.

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