swisstopo_get_height

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

The description does not add behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds no extra traits like accuracy or bounds (though bounds are in schema). It is neutral but not informative 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 extremely concise: one line for the main purpose and a use case tag. Every part earns its place without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, provides usage guidance, and leverages annotations and output schema. The sibling distinction adds completeness. No further information is necessary for correct invocation.

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 description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (lat, lon, sr). Since schema coverage is good, the description not adding parameter information is acceptable, but it doesn't add extra value. Score based on baseline for low coverage but with schema adequately covering.

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 the tool returns height above sea level for a WGS84 coordinate. It uses a specific verb phrase ('Gibt die Höhe über Meer... zurück') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool swisstopo_elevation_profile, which is for lines.

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 tag that explicitly says to use this tool for point heights and to use swisstopo_elevation_profile for lines. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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