format_from_linkedin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async behavior ('Returns a record_id; poll check_status') and indicates that input must be pasted text rather than auto-scraped. However, it omits critical details such as whether the tool mutates data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parenthetical. It front-loads the core purpose and async workflow. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and involves async polling, the description provides a coherent high-level workflow (paste text → record_id → poll). However, it lacks specifics about the output types (docx/pptx/xlsx), the role of template_type, and what constitutes valid input. Error conditions and the overall user context are not addressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description complements the schema by explaining the main parameter (profile_text) and providing guidance on template_id ('call list_document_types first'). Other parameters (candidate_name, output_format, template_type) are not elaborated beyond the schema. Overall, the description adds marginal value.

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 ('Turn') and clearly identifies the resource ('LinkedIn profile') and the output ('polished, branded resume or candidate profile'). It also references the polling workflow via a sibling tool, which helps distinguish it from other tools.

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 implies usage for LinkedIn profiles and suggests installing a Chrome extension for automated capture, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_document or what scenarios to avoid. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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