Get LinkedIn Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the use of the standard REST API without SNAP, the fallback behavior to the authenticated user's profile when no URL/member ID is given, and the specific return fields (headline, title, company, location). No contradictions with annotations.

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. Each section (API note, parameter guidance, args, returns, examples) earns its place. The examples are particularly useful and do not add redundancy beyond the schema.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameter combinations, explains the default behavior, lists the return contents, and includes practical examples. No important usage context is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between linkedin_url and member_id ('Provide either'), and the behavior when neither is given. It also provides a concrete example linking the phrase 'Get profile for linkedin.com/in/johndoe' to the exact linkedin_url value.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Get LinkedIn profile information for a specific person.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on retrieving a single known profile via URL/member ID, and by noting it uses the standard LinkedIn REST API.

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 on when to use the tool: provide a LinkedIn URL or member ID, or omit both to get the authenticated user's own profile. It includes concrete examples mapping natural-language requests to parameters. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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