Get Person Profile

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already convey. It does not disclose that the tool scrapes LinkedIn pages, how pagination works, or that extra sections can be requested. The annotation covers safety, but the description offers no additional behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It earns its place by adding the 'specific person' scope, differentiating from other profile-related tools. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has a well-structured schema and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the one-line description lacks context about usage scenarios, such as when to request extra sections or adjust max_scrolls, leaving the agent to rely on schema details. It is minimally complete but misses higher-level guidance for selecting among siblings.

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 description itself says nothing about parameters, but the input schema has comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters, including examples for linkedin_username and detailed explanations of sections and max_scrolls. With 100% 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 identifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific person's LinkedIn profile', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_people (search) and get_my_profile (own profile) by emphasizing a specific known person. Even without naming alternatives, the scope is explicit and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a LinkedIn username), exclusions, or related tools like search_people for finding usernames or connect_with_person after viewing a profile.

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