Get elevation at a coordinate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does state the data source and coverage (mainland Norway) and explicitly gives the unit (metres above sea level), which is useful. However, it omits any behavior for out-of-range coordinates (e.g., error vs. no data), any mention of read-only safety (obvious but not stated), and any details about the response format. The coverage note adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the core purpose, then adds the data source and coverage. Every word contributes information, with no redundancy or clutter. It is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

For a simple single-point elevation tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (elevation), units, and source. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent is left uninformed about error behavior (e.g., what happens for coordinates over water or outside Norway) and the exact response structure. While the tool is straightforward, a more complete description would mention these edge cases, so it does not reach a 4.

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 coverage is 100%, with both latitude and longitude fully described including WGS84 and allowed ranges. The description adds the context of the elevation model and coverage but no additional meaning about the parameters themselves. Since the schema already defines them thoroughly, the description provides no extra semantic value, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the action ('Get the terrain elevation'), the specific resource (Norwegian national elevation model), the unit (metres above sea level), and the condition (a coordinate). It is immediately evident what the tool does and how it differs from the sibling get_elevation_profile, which implies a multi-point profile. No ambiguity remains.

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 explains what the tool does but never addresses when to use it relative to sibling tools. For instance, it does not explicitly recommend get_elevation_profile for a series of points or clarify that this tool is only for single-point queries. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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