Get a trail's elevation profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses that elevation data may be unavailable and returns a not_found result. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or performance expectations, but the information provided is adequate for a read-only tool.

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, directly stating the purpose and a key caveat. No superfluous information, perfectly sized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value structure (min/max elevation, elevation points with lon, lat, ele, pos). It could clarify point ordering or coordinate system, but overall provides sufficient context for usage.

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% with each parameter already described. The description adds only the context of 'by OSM relation id' which is redundant. It provides output details but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it gets the elevation profile of a route using an OSM relation id, specifying the output includes min/max elevation and elevation points. This is distinct from sibling tools which focus on route finding, details, segments, etc.

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 indicates when to use (when elevation data is needed for a route by OSM id) and mentions a limitation (availability on some servers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools.

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