substack_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses page-limited results, post-only row filtering, and cursor-based pagination. It does not discuss rate limits, auth, or default behavior when no parameters are supplied, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, then parameter pairing, pagination, and filtering. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant repetition of structured data.

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?

Covers purpose, the prerequisite source for tab and type values, pagination mechanics, and the returned row type, which is substantial without annotations or an output schema. The main gap is that no parameters are required, yet the description never states what happens when tab and type are omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the relational constraint that tab and type must be used as a pair, which the schema's separate property descriptions do not state. It also reinforces the opaque-cursor pagination contract; the rest of the parameter details are already in 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse the public Substack Notes feed') and immediately scopes the result to 'one page ... for one tab,' which separates it from the many post and publication tools. The note that post-only rows are omitted and every returned row is a Note further pins down exactly what this tool returns.

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?

States a clear prerequisite: tab and type come as a pair from the Notes feed tabs endpoint, so an agent knows to consult that sibling endpoint first. It also gives explicit cursor-chaining guidance for pagination, but it does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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