open_elevation_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the units (meters) and the external data source, which is useful context, but says nothing about per-request point limits, rate limits, accuracy, or failure behavior for out-of-range coordinates.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the key output unit front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, if spare given the remaining informational gaps.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup, the description plus annotations plus schema is nearly sufficient, and the return value (elevation in meters) is stated despite no output schema. The missing piece is the coordinate input convention, which is the main thing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. However, the schema descriptions are trivial ('Latitude.', 'Longitude.') and the tool description does not specify coordinate format (decimal degrees, WGS84), accepted ranges, or whether multiple points can be submitted — details an agent could get wrong.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get elevation in meters for given coordinates') and names the backing service (Open Elevation API), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating from any sibling, but no sibling in the list offers elevation lookup, so ambiguity risk is low.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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