Get Person Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about optional sections and pagination behavior (max_scrolls) which helps set expectations. It doesn't repeat annotation info, adding value on how the tool scrapes sections, though it could be more explicit about potential side effects (none) or rate limiting. Given annotations cover read-only nature, a 4 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?

The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action. It's concise, but it lacks detail on options that the schema covers, making it slightly under-specified as a standalone description. However, given the schema's richness, it's appropriately brief. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

With a rich schema (100% param coverage) and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the primary purpose and the schema handles details. It is complete enough for a straightforward read operation, though it doesn't mention error scenarios. Given the annotations, a 4 is fair.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., sections format, max_scrolls behavior). The description doesn't add additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is justified. It does mention the main parameter implicitly in 'specific person', but that's minimal.

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 tool retrieves a specific person's LinkedIn profile using a username, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_profile and get_company_profile. It is specific verb+resource with the required parameter noted.

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 usage for retrieving a profile by username, and the schema adds context on optional sections. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_people or get_sidebar_profiles, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it when a known username is provided.

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