Get an elevation profile along a path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only sampling operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or requires no special permissions. It does disclose the data source (Kartverket DTM), which adds some transparency, but notable operational details (e.g., coordinate system limits) are not mentioned beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds a direct usage hint. Every clause contributes meaning, and it avoids repeating schema information. It is optimally concise for its content.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists what is returned (profile, total distance, ascent, descent), covering the main output expectations. It also mentions the data source and usage context. It does not detail potential edge cases or units, but for a path-sampling tool this is reasonably complete.

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?

Although the schema already provides full parameter descriptions, the description adds value by instructing 'Give the path vertices in order' and clarifying that 'samples controls resolution.' This goes beyond the schema's definition of samples as a count and provides practical guidance on ordering, which is essential for correct output.

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 tool samples terrain elevation evenly along a path and returns a profile plus distance, ascent, and descent. The verb 'sample' and resource 'terrain elevation along a path' are specific and distinct from the sibling get_elevation, which likely handles single points. It also notes the data source (Kartverket DTM), adding precision.

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 notes it is 'useful for hikes and routes,' giving a context for use, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_elevation or other alternatives. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the differentiation to inference from the path-based nature.

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