get_terrain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose units (metres), the sampling concept, and the return shape (range plus high/low points). It omits important behavioral caveats such as data resolution/accuracy, cost or rate limits, and behavior when the coordinate falls outside coverage.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and result are front-loaded in the first clause. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description gives only a one-line sketch of the return values, which is roughly adequate. However, for a four-parameter geo tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing parameter and data-quality detail leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate. It vaguely gestures at a 'coordinate' and sampling 'around' it, but never names lat/lon, never explains that radiusM is in metres with a 1000 m default, and says nothing about the 'samples' count or its default of 16 — 'in metres' is even ambiguous between elevation and radius.

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 and resource ('Sample ground elevation around a coordinate') plus the output shape (range, high and low points). It is clearly distinct from siblings like route, get_weather, or get_daylight, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 phrase 'which is what an agent needs for grade reasoning' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives for elevation-adjacent needs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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