get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does state the return is 'visible text' and that it 'opens' a profile (implying browser interaction), but it does not disclose auth requirements (likely needing linkedin_login first), rate-limit behavior, or whether the profile must be publicly accessible. Some useful behavioral context, but gaps remain.

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?

One sentence, zero filler. Every phrase earns its place: input formats, resource, and output are all covered efficiently. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably adequate. However, given the sibling set includes many profile-related operations (get_my_profile, open_profile_section, search_people) and there's no output schema, it could benefit from noting auth prerequisites, section coverage, or which underlying data makes profiles differ — the current description leaves those gaps.

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 100%, with the schema already detailing the two accepted formats. The description reinforces this by reiterating both the vanity slug and full URL forms. While the schema does most of the work, the description adds modest value by confirming the return behavior tied to the parameter usage.

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 ('Open') with a clear resource (LinkedIn profile) and explicitly scopes the input to vanity name or full URL, returning visible text. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_company or get_my_profile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_profile, get_company, or search_people. The description states what it does but gives no exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., login required), or contextual cues about when it's the right choice among the many profile/people-related siblings.

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