get_my_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly discloses the read-only, self-scoped nature ('can only read your own profile information') and mentions the authenticated requirement. This is valuable but does not go into other traits like rate limits or response size; however, the output schema covers return values.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by a security notice. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's trivial parameter surface (0), the existence of an output schema covering return value structure, and annotations absent, the description covers what the tool is for and its key constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add; schema coverage is 100% by an empty schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve'), a precise resource ('full profile details'), and a clear scope ('your own authenticated LinkedIn profile'). This distinguishes it from siblings like view_profile, which would presumably target other profiles, and from profile-mutation tools like update_my_headline.

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 clearly states the tool is for your own authenticated profile, which implies when to use it (self-profile reads) and implicitly not for others. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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