Get My Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it navigates to /in/me/ and resolves the redirect so the returned url is the actual profile URL rather than /in/me/. That explains an otherwise surprising return value.

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 purpose followed by the redirect-resolution detail. No wasted text; the second sentence earns its place by explaining the url field, though it is somewhat implementation-level.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Purpose, scoping, and the non-obvious URL behavior are all covered, leaving only the missing explicit sibling routing as a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (sections, max_scrolls) are fully documented in the schema, including examples and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the authenticated user's own LinkedIn profile'), and the word 'own' implicitly scopes it away from get_person_profile. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'own' – the agent can infer this is for the caller's profile versus get_person_profile for others. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving the routing to inference.

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