linkedin_get_my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a safe, non-destructive operation, and notes the data scope (OpenID profile and email). It adds context about authentication but does not detail response structure or error behavior, which would have raised it higher.

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, concise sentence of 10 words. It front-loads the action and resource without any wasted words or redundant detail, making it an exemplary concise description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, indicates authentication, and hints at return content. It lacks details on response format, but for a standard OpenID profile read, this is adequate.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-related information because none exists, which 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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the specific resource (the authenticated LinkedIn member's OpenID profile and email). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'linkedin_auth_status' (checking auth status) and 'linkedin_create_post' (creating content), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve profile/email data for the authenticated user, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like 'linkedin_auth_status' for status checks. The usage is inferable but not explicitly framed.

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