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 behavioral traits. It only lists returned fields, offering no information about read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence that starts with the verb 'Fetch' and lists the key data items. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or extraneous text.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values by listing fields, but it does not specify the structure (e.g., a JSON object) or guarantee availability. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

There are zero parameters (empty input schema), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the data returned (name, headline, etc.), which is helpful even though no parameter details are needed.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'LinkedIn profile info', listing specific fields (name, headline, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like linkedin_get_contact_info or linkedin_get_sections, making the tool's purpose 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies it's for basic profile info, but no exclusions or conditions are stated, relying on the agent to infer.

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