Get LinkedIn User Info (OpenID Connect)

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the required 'openid' scope, noting that email is only returned if the 'email' scope is granted, and fully documenting the response shape. 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return fields, then sibling differentiation, then parameters/return example/scope. Every section earns its place and the prose is tight with no fluff, even though the JSON return example is somewhat detailed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a full JSON return contract, covers the parameter, states the required scope, and clarifies behavior with minimal scopes. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand what it will receive.

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 single parameter is already fully documented with 100% schema coverage, including enum values, default, and a concise description. The description's Args section merely restates this information without adding deeper semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Get basic user identity information via OpenID Connect.' It enumerates exactly which fields are returned and explicitly differentiates from getMyProfile via the minimal-scope guarantee, so an agent can distinguish it from its sibling 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 description provides a clear usage context by stating it 'always works even with minimal scopes' and contrasting it with getMyProfile. This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the likely alternative, though it doesn't explicitly describe when to choose getMyProfile instead.

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