get_linkedin_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, privacy considerations, or what happens when a profile isn't found. For a tool accessing external platform data with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and doesn't bury important information in unnecessary verbiage.

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 data retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations means important behavioral context is missing, and without an output schema, there's no information about what the detailed profile data actually looks like. The description should ideally mention the scope of 'detailed information' or reference the parameter-controlled sections.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't clarify what that includes or how parameters control it. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a LinkedIn user profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_linkedin_user_connections' or 'get_linkedin_user_posts', which also retrieve LinkedIn user data but focus on specific aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve LinkedIn user data (e.g., get_linkedin_user_connections, get_linkedin_user_posts), there's no indication of when this comprehensive profile tool is preferred over more specific ones, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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