linkedin_get_my_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful detail that this uses the OIDC userinfo endpoint, which implies OIDC-style profile claims, but it does not mention token failures, required scopes, or return-value behavior. With annotations carrying the core safety signal, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that names the action, resource, and endpoint with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 supportive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention the standard OIDC claims returned, but 'OIDC userinfo endpoint' gives a strong signal about the response shape, and no output schema is present to fill that gap.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema describes it completely, including its defaulting behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 specific action ('Read'), the resource ('authenticated LinkedIn member profile'), and the implementation path ('OIDC userinfo endpoint'). Sibling tools are all about auth or posts, so this tool is unambiguously distinguished as the one for retrieving the current user's 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 implies the right context: the caller must be authenticated, and the tool returns the caller's own profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set contains no other profile-fetching tool, so the intended usage is clear.

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