get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it retrieves a profile and lists the fields, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements) are mentioned, but for a simple read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific return fields. It is concise and structured effectively with no unnecessary information.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and the tool is simple, the description lists the return fields (name, headline, about/summary, vanity URL, email) which provides complete context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Retrieve the authenticated user's LinkedIn profile' and lists specific fields (name, headline, about/summary, vanity URL, email). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_experience and get_skills.

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 gives a clear context (authenticated user's profile) and lists the returned fields, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions. However, for a parameterless read-only tool, the implied usage is straightforward.

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