get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool fetches a profile but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what data is returned, error handling for invalid identifiers, or if it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns (e.g., profile fields, format), authentication requirements, error cases, or limitations. For a tool that likely interacts with an external API and returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'public_identifier' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the parameter as 'public identifier (vanity URL slug)' and providing an example, but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a LinkedIn profile'), specifies the input method ('by public identifier'), and provides a concrete example ('vanity URL slug, e.g. 'john-doe-123''). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_own_profile (which fetches the user's own profile) and get_profile_details/experience/skills (which retrieve specific profile sections).

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 by specifying the input type ('public identifier'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_own_profile (for the user's own profile) or search_people (for broader searches). It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or error conditions.

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