Get LinkedIn résumé

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). It lists sections but that's more about parameters.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. All listed sections are relevant. Could be slightly more structured, but concise overall.

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 tool has 2 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the main return content well. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., implicit listing of sections).

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 tool retrieves the user's LinkedIn résumé and lists many sections (bio, work history, education, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings (get_activity, get_section, etc.) by focusing on the full professional profile.

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 says 'Use for questions about who they are professionally, their background, or qualifications,' which gives clear use context. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when to prefer sibling tools like get_activity.

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