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

With annotations providing only a title, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the sampling model and the resulting underestimation for summits, which is valuable context. It does not mention error cases or response structure, but the core behavior is 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The accuracy caveat is relevant and 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 simple read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (elevation in metres and feet) and includes a meaningful caveat. It does not explain how parameters should be combined, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor 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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, such as suggesting that lat/lon are alternatives to place or how they interact. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: reporting elevation above sea level in metres and feet. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like places_search and places_geocode by focusing on elevation, though it lacks a direct verb such as 'Get' or 'Return'.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about the 90-metre model is informative but does not frame use cases or exclusions. In a family of location tools, this description does not help the agent choose it over others.

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