maps_elevation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The word 'get' implies a safe read operation, and the description adds the useful unit detail ('in meters'). However, it does not disclose traits such as return format, handling of coordinates without elevation data, or any limits beyond what the schema already states.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and scopes the input range. No wasted words; the unit clarification earns its place alongside the core function.

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 tool with a fully covered schema, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not specify what the return value looks like (e.g., elevations aligned with input order), which the description could have clarified.

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%, with the 'locations' parameter fully documented including min/max items and latitude/longitude bounds. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the unit context, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('elevation data'), and scopes the input precisely ('one or more geographic coordinates'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which cover geocoding, places, directions, and distance matrices, not elevation.

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?

Usage context is implied by the domain: an agent would select this tool when it needs elevation values rather than addresses, routes, or places. However, no sibling tools are explicitly named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The separation from siblings is inferable but not stated.

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