get_elevation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: return value (elevation in metres), input format, and maximum coordinate count. It does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid coordinates, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, input format with limit, and usage examples. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has one required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the key aspects: input format, limit, and practical use. It could mention that results correspond to input order or what happens on error, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 only defines 'coordinates' as an array of strings with no description. The tool description adds critical meaning: coordinates must be 'lat,lng' strings, limited to 50. This far exceeds the schema's bare type information, making the parameter much more usable.

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 explicitly states the function: 'Get the elevation in metres above sea level at one point or at several.' It specifies the exact input format ('list of 'lat,lng' strings, at most 50') and provides concrete usage scenarios (judge terrain, floodplain, exposure). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on time zones, geocoding, or places.

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 practical use cases ('judge terrain, climb, floodplain, exposure'), implying when to invoke the tool. It also sets a clear limit (at most 50 coordinates). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for elevation data, though no obvious alternatives exist among siblings.

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