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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the profile belonging to the account owner and that the provider user ID is relevant, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior beyond what annotations already imply.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and adds precise usage guidance without any filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It tells an agent what the tool returns (the owner's profile), when to use it, and why the provider user ID matters, which is sufficient despite the absence of an output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with a detailed account_id description, including when to omit it and how to handle multiple accounts. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the explanatory burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the profile of the owner of the connected LinkedIn account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_profile and linkedin_get_profile_from_url by specifying 'owner of the connected account.' It also names concrete use cases, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'for my LinkedIn profile, identity/context, or before actions that need the account owner's provider user ID.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the 'owner' phrasing implicitly separates it from other LinkedIn profile lookup tools.

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