Get Sidebar Profiles

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly=true and openWorld=true, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it follows 'Show all' links to return full lists and skips sections that redirect to linkedin.com/premium. These are non-obvious behaviors that help an agent predict the tool's output and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary behavioral details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema (available but not shown), the description is remarkably complete. It explains exactly what sections are targeted, how 'Show all' is handled, and that premium-redirecting sections are skipped. Given the tool's simplicity, no further context is needed.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter (linkedin_username) with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get profile links from sidebar recommendation sections on a LinkedIn profile page.' It names the specific sections ('More profiles for you', 'Explore premium profiles', 'People you may know'), making the resource highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_person_profile which focuses on the main profile.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when sidebar recommendations are needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks phrases like 'use this instead of X' or 'do not use when Y', so it only provides implied usage context rather than explicit guidance.

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