Profile

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the annotations alone would mislead an agent into expecting a mutating call. The description resolves this by disclosing that it is a read-like POST that 'do not publish to social platforms,' and adds credit consumption and the confirm=true gate. It stops short of documenting rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core action before the field inventory, and each clause carries payload or billing information. The removal-policy sentence is slightly tangential but still operationally relevant, so the tool remains reasonably tight.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the identity fields, infoLinks, and categorized webLinks. Combined with the credit/confirm caveats and the schema's cache documentation, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though error and pagination behavior are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description earns above it by explaining the practical meaning of confirm=true ('Potentially consumes paid API credits') and reinforcing the url parameter's role. The account and cache_max_age parameters are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Retrieves a Linkme profile by URL') and enumerates the returned payload (identity, social links, contact details, flags). This clearly separates it from sibling link-in-bio scrapers such as linktree_linktree_page, komi_komi_page, and linkbio_linkbio_page.

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 usage via the URL-parameter premise and notes the confirm=true requirement, but it never states when to prefer linkme_profile over the other link-in-bio or social-profile siblings, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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