get_tracked_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool retrieves details and activity history, which implies a safe read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly restructured for better scannability, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple get operation with no output schema, the description adequately mentions that it returns details and activity history. It does not cover edge cases or return format specifics, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic output. In the absence of output schema, this is reasonable.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'Get details of a tracked LinkedIn profile', so it adds no extra value. Baseline score 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'tracked LinkedIn profile', and explicitly mentions 'details including activity history'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracked_profiles (which lists all) and create_tracked_profile (which creates a new one).

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 implies usage when you need details of a specific tracked profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_profile (for non-tracked profiles) or list_tracked_profiles. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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