swisstopo_elevation_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement of at least 2 coordinate pairs, the default WGS84 coordinate system with option for LV95, and the deprecation note for the 'sr' parameter. These details help the agent understand constraints and edge cases beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by structured <use_case> and <important_notes> tags. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The German text is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, prerequisites, and coordinate system handling. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but that's sufficiently handled by the output schema. The tool is relatively simple, and this description is adequate without major gaps.

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?

The input schema fully documents all parameters with descriptions (coordinates format, defaults, ranges). The description's important_notes largely reiterate schema information but add the '≥2 Koordinatenpaare' constraint and the deprecation of 'sr'. Since schema description coverage is effectively high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal but non-essential additions.

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 starts with 'Berechnet ein Höhenprofil entlang einer Linie aus mehreren Koordinatenpaaren', which is a specific verb (Berechnet) + resource (Höhenprofil) + scope (entlang einer Linie). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool swisstopo_get_height (which likely handles single points) and other location-based tools. The use_case tag reinforces the intended domain.

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 <use_case> tag explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., hiking/school-route analyses), providing clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and use case are specific enough. The <important_notes> also give prerequisites (≥2 coordinate pairs), which helps the agent decide if the tool is appropriate.

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