terrain_elevation

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains the data source (Copernicus GLO-90), resolution (90 m), datum (EGM2008 geoid), and why this differs from GNSS ellipsoidal height. This prevents a real-world misinterpretation of the returned value.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, key return details in the second, and the alternate tool in the third. Every sentence contributes context without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers units, datum, source, and sibling routing. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 single parameter is already fully described in the schema as 'Position, as coordinates or a place name', so the description adds no extra parameter-level format details. The schema carries the explanatory burden, matching the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Get ground elevation above sea level at a location') and the description explicitly contrasts it with terrain_profile, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable from its closest sibling.

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?

It explicitly states when to prefer terrain_profile ('For elevation along a path rather than at one point') and names the sibling, giving clear selection guidance. No important condition is left to inference.

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