Get Person Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat read-only status. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as how sections or max_scrolls affect scraping depth. With no extra context, it provides minimal additive transparency.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, ideal 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?

For a simple GET tool, the description combined with the rich schema and annotations covers the essentials. However, it doesn't mention the ability to scrape extra sections or control pagination, which are salient features; although these are fully documented in the schema, the description leaves the tool's full range hidden. It also lacks any mention of alternatives, making it slightly incomplete for contextual selection.

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 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for linkedin_username, sections, and max_scrolls. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden, so a baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific person's LinkedIn profile'), which is clear and distinguishes it from company/self/feed tools. It could be more explicit about using a LinkedIn username, but the schema clarifies that. It does not explicitly differentiate from search_people or get_sidebar_profiles, but the direct 'get' wording implies a targeted lookup.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_people or get_my_profile. The one-sentence description implies basic usage but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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