linkedin_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 transparently discloses the return content and the page-load trade-off, but omits any session/auth prerequisite or error behavior. This is partially transparent but not comprehensive.

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?

Three terse sentences, each earning its place: purpose, returns, and the parameter trade-off. The essential information is front-loaded with zero 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 read-only profile tool with no output schema, the description covers what's returned and the parameter option. It omits explicit session requirements, but sibling tools (check_session/close_session) imply that context, so it's not a critical 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value for include_sections by explaining the decision rule and its result-size impact, and reinforces the profile format. This exceeds the baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Read a LinkedIn profile') and then lists the specific fields returned (name, headline, location, about, experience, education, skills). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling job-search and session tools.

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 purpose is explicit, and the include_sections guidance gives a concrete conditional ('Set include_sections to false when you only need to confirm who someone is') with a performance trade-off. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the domain is distinct enough that this is sufficient.

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