Review a whole profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: it never logs in to or scrapes LinkedIn, which tells the agent the tool works only on supplied text and makes no network/account calls. It also discloses the return shape (per-section results and a checklist), which annotations do not cover.

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 core action, then the input example, then the return shape and the LinkedIn disclaimer. No sentence is filler.

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?

The return value is described (no output schema exists, so this matters), and the no-scraping constraint is covered. But for a nine-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the input contract underspecified, which is the main completeness 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 0% across nine parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it explains only that the payload comes from pasted profile text, without clarifying what 'headline', 'target_role', 'featured_count', 'connections', or 'job_descriptions' mean or how they affect the checks. An agent must guess the meaning and expected format of most fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it runs 'every check' on a 'pasted profile' and returns per-section results plus a checklist. The phrase 'whole profile' implicitly contrasts it with field-level siblings like review_headline and review_experience, but it never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It clarifies the input form ('the text of LinkedIn's Save to PDF'), which is real usage context, and 'every check' implies whole-profile use versus the single-field sibling tools. However, it never states explicitly when to use this instead of review_headline/review_experience, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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