Profilo altimetrico di un sentiero

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds value by disclosing that it downloads the full geometry and is slower than alternatives. It also clarifies the sampling mechanism, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core output and method, then adds the performance caveat and usage guidance in a natural order.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description supplies the remaining essential context: when the slowness matters and what kind of query it should be reserved for. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%: both osm_relation_id and passo_m already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description's mention of sampling aligns with passo_m but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb ('Calcola') and names the resource (sentiero) plus the concrete outputs: actual length, positive and negative elevation gain. It also separates itself from sibling search tools by warning it is not intended for searches.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('quando serve capire l'impegno di una gita') and when not to use it ('non nelle ricerche'), and it warns about slowness. However, it refers to alternatives only generically as 'altri tool' rather than naming a specific sibling such as dettaglio_sentiero or cerca_sentieri.

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