extract_linkedin_profile

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

When annotations are absent, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'extracts' and 'using the Lakome API', but leaves out whether network access is required, whether authentication is needed, whether any state changes occur, and what 'intelligence' entails.

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?

A single sentence conveys the action, resource, input cardinality, and backend API. There is no fluff, and the key detail that this is a batch-style URL extraction is front-loaded.

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?

The core purpose is clear, but the absence of an output schema and behavioral notes means the agent lacks information about the structure of the returned data, failure behavior, or what data is actually considered 'intelligence'. For such a simple tool, the bare-bones description is minimal but still has noticeable gaps.

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 schema already documents the single parameter (profileUrls) with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond restating the one-or-more constraint.

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 ('extract') and identifies the resource clearly: comprehensive structured profile data and intelligence from LinkedIn profile URLs via the Lakome API. It distinguishes the tool's scope immediately, including the ability to handle one or more URLs.

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 usage context is explicit: call this tool when you need structured LinkedIn profile data from the given profile URLs. No exclusions or alternative tools exist in the provided context, so the clear scenario description is sufficient.

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