Get Sidebar Profiles

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

Beyond the provided annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses additional behaviors: following 'Show all' links to get full lists and skipping sections that redirect to linkedin.com/premium. This gives the agent useful expectations about tool behavior and potential omissions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two short paragraphs, each sentence adding specific value: naming the sections, explaining the 'Show all' behavior, and noting premium redirect handling. No unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is extracted, how the extraction works, and one edge case (premium redirects). It could mention error behavior or the exact structure of returned links, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall adequate.

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 parameter is already well-documented. The description doesn't add extra semantic detail beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profile links from sidebar recommendation sections'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_person_profile. It names the exact sections targeted, 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve profile links from sidebar recommendation sections. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage versus sibling tools.

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