geo_height

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the LV95 coordinate system requirement and the swissALTI3D data source, which is useful context beyond annotations. Specifying 'm a.s.l.' clarifies the height datum format.

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?

One concise sentence, zero waste. Front-loads the purpose well. Though it's arguably too terse given zero parameter coverage and a single parameter that is itself a nested object.

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?

The output schema exists (though not shown in full here), annotations cover safety profile, and the core behavior (single point height query) is straightforward. For a simple point-lookup tool this is reasonably complete. Main gap is not explaining that the 'params' argument is the point object, but the schema handles that.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters directly. The schema itself has well-documented params (easting/northing with examples), so the schema does heavy lifting here. But since coverage is 0%, the description doesn't compensate at all - it never mentions that the single 'params' object requires easting and northing coordinates.

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?

Clear verb+resource: returns terrain height at a point in LV95 coordinate system, sourced from swissALTI3D service. It's specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling geo_elevation_profile (which is profile, not single point) or geo_identify, though the 'at an LV95 point' scoping is fairly clear.

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 implies use case: get a single height value at a coordinate point. It is close to sibling geo_elevation_profile but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the profile tool. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives given.

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