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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the breadth of the payload — identity, posting statistics, preferences, and a company-page count — which tells the agent roughly how heavy the response is and what it can extract from one call.

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?

A single sentence with the core action and payload front-loaded, and the sibling routing hint placed at the end where it does no harm. Every clause earns its place by naming a returned field or a routing rule.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the profile sections returned. Combined with annotations that establish it as a safe read, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

Specific verb ('Retrieves') plus resource ('the connected user's full LinkedIn profile'), followed by an enumeration of the exact fields returned (identity, headline, summary, posting statistics, preferences, company page count). It also names the sibling tool to use for details on one of those fields, so an agent can distinguish it from list_organizations without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical '(use list_organizations for details)' gives an explicit routing rule away from this tool for company-page data. However, it provides no when-not guidance for the profile read itself (e.g. whether it requires an authenticated connection, or whether it should be called once per session), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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