Get Lead Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by specifying that the tool reads from the local store only and makes no external call to LinkedIn. This goes beyond the annotation and sets accurate expectations about side effects and data freshness.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second explains its scope and prerequisite. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

With a single required parameter, full schema description coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the remaining needed context: local-only reads and the dependency on fetch_lead_profiles. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already fully documents member_id as 'Stable LinkedIn member id' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 and resource ('Read one stored full profile') and clarifies the tool's purpose as the source for drafting messages. It also distinguishes itself from fetch_lead_profiles by noting it reads from the local store only and does not call LinkedIn.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and gives a prerequisite: run fetch_lead_profiles first for leads that have not been fetched. It also clarifies a key limitation ('does not call LinkedIn'), so an agent knows this tool is not for live enrichment.

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