elevation_at_point

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source and expected output (elevation, terrain type), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or potential errors.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input scope (Norway, CRS), output details (elevation, terrain type), and data source. No output schema needed as description explains return values.

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 adequate descriptions. The description adds the country constraint (Norway) and clarifies that coordinates are in EPSG:4258/WGS84, already covered by schema. Slight added value.

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 the tool gets ground elevation in metres at a coordinate in Norway, using a national 1m digital terrain model. It is distinct from sibling tools (address/place name focused) and uses specific verbs and resources.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools are address/place name focused, implying usage for elevation queries, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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