substack_publication_contributors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses pagination ('Returns one page'), ranking ('ranked as Substack ranks them'), row contents (handle, profile URL, bestseller badge tier), and scale ('several hundred contributors on the first page'). It does not cover auth or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool this is substantial transparency.

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, all informative, with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of value: purpose, pagination/ranking, row contents and downstream use, and scale. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the row fields and behavioral traits like ranking and pagination. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention how to request subsequent pages beyond the first or what happens with invalid publications.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter context: it implies the 'publication' parameter refers to a Substack publication and that 'page' relates to the one-page return, but it does not explain page mechanics beyond what the schema's 'Zero-based page' already states.

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: 'List a Substack publication's public contributors.' It further clarifies the resource as 'writers credited on a publication,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like substack_publication or substack_publication_posts. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve the credited writers of a publication, and it even suggests a downstream workflow of fanning out into /substack/user lookups. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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