OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or potential privacy/legal considerations. For an OSINT tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 brief but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Args: linkedin_url: LinkedIn profile URL') is redundant with the schema and could be integrated more efficiently. It avoids waste but lacks optimal structure for quick scanning.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, OSINT context), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'linkedin_url', but the description specifies it's a 'LinkedIn profile URL', clarifying the expected format and purpose. Since there's only one parameter and the description compensates for the schema gap, this earns a high score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full LinkedIn profile - experience, education, skills.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('LinkedIn profile'), and scope of data returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osint_linkedin_company' or 'osint_linkedin_find', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'osint_linkedin_company' or 'osint_linkedin_find', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the parameter description, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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