read_profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: sidebars and footer are dropped from the parse, and an error is returned when no roles are found. That error-path disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and the field list are front-loaded, followed by the scoping constraint and error behavior. The dense run-on with parentheticals ('(Hybrid, Remote or On-site)', '(the description)') is slightly heavy but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

A single required parameter with full schema documentation, an output schema covering the return shape, plus description-level disclosure of trimming, the no-network constraint, and the no-roles error. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema's parameter description already specifies the source page and that a link is unacceptable, so the description need not compensate. It reinforces the source ('text of their LinkedIn experience page') and lists the parsed fields, but adds no format or syntax guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: extract roles (title, company, dates, location, bullets) from a person's LinkedIn experience page text, for interview prep. The follow-up sentence 'This only parses text it is given' resolves the misleading name 'read_profile' by making clear no external fetch occurs, distinguishing it from fetch-style siblings like fetch_jobs or check_postings.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use for interview prep on an interviewer or contact, and obtain the page text via the person's own browser because jobwatch never reads linkedin.com. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when-not to use it beyond the browser-sourcing constraint, so it falls short of a 5.

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