Get My Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it navigates to /in/me/, resolves redirects, and ensures the url field contains the real profile URL rather than a placeholder. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover every possible behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second adds a crucial implementation detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the one non-obvious behavior (URL resolution) that users need to know, and the schema covers the rest.

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 already provides 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for both sections and max_scrolls, including examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the authenticated user's own LinkedIn profile.' It differentiates from sibling tools like get_person_profile by emphasizing 'own,' making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this is for the authenticated user's own profile, which implies when it should be used versus get_person_profile. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, stopping short of full guidance.

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