linkedin_get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'your' clarifies that it operates on the authenticated user's profile. However, it does not disclose response structure, potential errors, or any access constraints beyond the implicit authorization.

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 concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter profile retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient. It names the resource and gives examples of expected data. It doesn't explain return format or edge cases, but the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for additional context.

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 has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details.

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 identifies the resource as 'your LinkedIn profile information' with examples like name and email. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on posts or company pages.

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 retrieving one's own profile information, but provides no explicit guidance against alternative tools or mention of when not to use it. Sibling tools are about posts and company pages, so context is somewhat clear but not explicit.

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