substack_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Get'), restricts output to public Notes, and describes what is returned including a conditional field ('the post it links to when it has one'). It is transparent about the response shape, though it does not mention error/private-note behavior or define what 'engagement counts' includes.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the return payload, and the parameter extraction rule comes last. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easily scannable by an agent.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it: what it returns, the public-only scope, and how to derive note_id from a URL. The main gap is that 'engagement counts' is vague and the description does not specify behavior for missing/private notes, but these are minor for such a simple fetch operation.

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?

Although the schema already describes note_id as 'Numeric Note id,' the description adds crucial extraction semantics: it shows the note_id is the numeric segment from a URL like `/@handle/note/c-316240438` and explicitly identifies `316240438` as the value. This is exactly the kind of practical detail an agent needs to construct the parameter correctly, going well beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one public Substack Note') and then clarifies the exact return payload: one note with author, engagement counts, and optionally the linked post. It also defines Notes as 'short-form social posts,' which helps distinguish this from the sibling substack_post long-form tool. The singular 'one' implicitly differentiates it from list-style siblings like substack_notes, substack_note_replies, and substack_note_restacks.

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 for fetching a single note when you have its note_id, but it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as substack_note_replies or substack_note_restacks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The note_id extraction example is useful for invocation, but not for tool selection.

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