linkedin_get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key requirement (approved profile product/scope), which is useful. However, it does not mention error patterns (e.g., missing permissions, invalid ID), rate limits, or what happens if the ID is not found. The single behavioral note is helpful but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the accepted ID types and the prerequisite. Every word contributes, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: the parameter purpose and a key prerequisite. It does not explain the return shape, but this is less critical given that 'profile' implies its content. The absence of annotation support is partly mitigated by the scope requirement, so the description is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that personId accepts public, numeric, or URN formats. The description essentially repeats this information without adding new meaning (e.g., syntax examples, required format precedence). Thus it adds minimal value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Retrieve a member profile') and the resource (member profile by person id), with explicit detail on the accepted id formats (publicId, numeric, or URN). It distinguishes from siblings by its specific focus on fetching a profile by ID versus searching (linkedin_search_people) or accessing the caller's own profile (linkedin_me).

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires an approved profile product/scope') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like linkedin_me or linkedin_search_people. The context is clear that you need a known person ID, but there is no contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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