linkedin_get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (name, email, picture, locale, person URN) and the key cross-tool behavioral fact that the URN is required as author_urn elsewhere. It does not mention token/permission prerequisites or rate limits, which is a minor remaining gap for a read-only profile call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return payload, then the imperative next step. The em-dash emphasis on the URN prioritizes correctly and no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does. Combined with the zero-parameter schema and the explicit reuse instruction, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter information is missing.

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+resource (get the authenticated member's LinkedIn profile) and enumerates the returned fields. It is unambiguously the read/bootstrapping tool among a sibling set that is otherwise all write operations (create_post, upload_*, delete_post).

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?

Explicitly instructs ordering ('Call this first and reuse the URN') and explains the reason: the person URN is the author_urn required by all post-creation tools. That is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to the sibling set, not inferred guidance.

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