get_sales_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a subscription requirement, which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a read operation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 that front-loads the key information (action and resource) and includes a necessary prerequisite without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite, but for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context like response details or error scenarios to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'lead_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 lead's profile from Sales Navigator'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'get_profile_details', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires Sales Navigator subscription'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_profile' or 'get_profile_details', nor does it specify exclusions or detailed usage scenarios beyond the subscription requirement.

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