linkedin_profile_inspect_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: the editor is opened but nothing is saved, plus the exact shape of the returned data (label, type, required, options). It omits auth/session prerequisites and failure behavior, but the safety-relevant disclosure is solid.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action and the no-save constraint front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it explains why field inspection matters (matching LinkedIn's current field names). Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter (section) is documented with its allowed values, so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (opens the section editor and returns the exact current fields), and the 'sin guardar nada' clause distinguishes it functionally from the write siblings such as linkedin_profile_edit. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Úsalo antes de editar una sección por primera vez'), which is actionable. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top mark.

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