swisstopo_elevation_profile

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the requirement for at least 2 coordinate pairs and the string format, but does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for primary function, followed by XML-tagged use case and important note. No redundant information.

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 description adequately explains the tool's purpose and input requirements. The output schema is present, so no need to describe return values. Minor gap: optional parameters (nb_points, sr) are not mentioned, but schema covers them.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (coordinates, nb_points, sr). The description reinforces the coordinates format and minimum count, adding value beyond the schema but not covering optional parameters details.

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 that it calculates an elevation profile along a line from coordinate pairs, and provides a specific use case for hiking/school route analysis, distinguishing it from sibling geospatial tools.

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 includes a use case suggesting when to use it and an important note about the required format and minimum coordinate pairs, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or explain when not to use.

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