get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns cleaned data in TOON format' which adds some behavioral context about output processing, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what 'cleaned' entails. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose and main parameters, second sentence covers output format. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral details needed for a data retrieval tool (rate limits, authentication, error handling). The TOON format mention helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three primary input methods (URL, public identifier, profile ID) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'LinkedIn profile information', specifying three input methods (URL, public identifier, or profile ID) and the output format (TOON format). It distinguishes from siblings like get_company or get_post by focusing specifically on profile data retrieval.

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 context by listing three input methods, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_profiles or other get_* tools. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios is provided.

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