get_publication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: by default it returns a projection of fields, and passing full: true returns all 111 fields. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the 'projection' concept and the payload implications (~24 KB, including every notification toggle and HTML content). Since it's a read-only operation, no side-effect disclosure is needed.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that states the action, the resource, enumerates key fields, and explains the default vs. full behavior. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is zero fluff.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return content, and the difference between projection and full payload. It omits error handling or authentication details, but these are less critical for a simple read operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with a detailed description of the 'full' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the 'projection' concept and clarifies the default behavior, which supplements the schema and gives the agent a better mental model of the parameter's effect.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource: 'settings and identity of your Substack publication'. It enumerates concrete fields (name, subdomain, custom domain, hero text, copyright, sender name, logo, plans and payment state), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that focus on drafts, posts, comments, or analytics.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever you need the publication's settings or identity. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient. A 4 reflects this clear context without explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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