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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the operation runs 'using the user's own account,' it resolves multiple identifier forms, and its output supplies the stable user id needed by follow-up actions. This gives the agent a clearer behavioral model than the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action and accepted identifier forms are front-loaded, followed by when to prefer it, what the result enables, and optional sections. 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?

For a read-only resolver with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: identifier forms, account context, preferred usage, downstream dependency, and optional sections. It could be more complete by explaining the variant parameter or naming the direct sibling alternative, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 75%, and the description adds some value by explaining the accepted identifier forms for user_id_or_url and the purpose of with_sections. However, the variant parameter has no schema description and is not addressed in the tool description, and much of the description repeats what the schema already documents. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a LinkedIn person's full profile' from a user ID, public identifier, or profile URL. It also carves out a distinct role as 'the preferred resolver before an action when the user supplied only a profile URL' and ties the result to the stable user id needed by other tools, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like linkedin_get_profile_from_url or linkedin_search_people.

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 when-to-use guidance: use it as a resolver before an action when the user supplied only a profile URL, and it calls out downstream tools that need the stable user id (linkedin_start_conversation, linkedin_send_invitation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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