Elevation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the upstream provider (USGS), the US-only coverage limit, and the dual feet/meters output. It does not say what happens for out-of-coverage coordinates (error vs. null), which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the essential scope and source information is front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need only supply scope and semantics, which it does. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior for coordinates outside US coverage.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the example value and the US-coverage caveat on lat. The description only restates 'latitude/longitude' with no added syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (ground elevation), and inputs (lat/long), plus the data source (USGS Elevation Point Query Service) and return units (feet and meters). No sibling tool in the list returns elevation data, so it is trivially distinguishable from geocode, weather_*, and earthquakes.

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 is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs terrain elevation. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance, though the 'within the US' scope constraint is a useful boundary. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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