Read LinkedIn Member Profile

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns 'full retained text, field evidence, and bounded section-page coverage,' warning of potential limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates return contents without redundancy. Every clause carries meaning, making it concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and return highlights. It doesn't address invalid/invisible profiles or the meaning of context/request IDs, but these are minor given the annotated hints and schema richness.

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 50%, describing sections and profile_slug. The description adds that the slug is 'validated public' and that sections cover 'every visible profile section,' but it does not explain context_id/request_id semantics. This leaves the parameter guidance partially incomplete.

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 reads a LinkedIn member profile by public profile slug, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('LinkedIn member profile'). It lists detailed return contents (typed introduction, About, experience, education, all visible sections, full retained text, field evidence), distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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 phrase 'directly by validated public profile slug' implies the agent must already have a profile slug, giving clear context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like linkedin.people.search, but the 'directly' wording sets it apart from search, providing adequate guidance without exclusions.

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